Skip to main content

Full text of "Neighborhood analysis, Shelby, North Carolina"

See other formats


NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS 




SHELBY NORTH CAROLINA 



NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS 




SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA 



The preparation of this report, was financially aided through a 
Federal grant from the Urban Renewal Administration of the 
Housing and Home Finance Agency, under the Urban Planning 
Assistance Program authorized by Section 701 of the Housing 
Act of 1954, as amended. 



PREPARED FOR: 



THE CITY OF SHELBY, NORTH CAROLINA 

Hubert S. Plaster, Mayor 
Phin Horton, III, City Manager 

CITY COUNCIL — Miles Baker 

Ge or ge Clay, Jr . 
James Henderson 

B. A. Lefler 
Lester Roark 
Stephen Royster 

PLANNING BOARD J. Lowery Austell, 

George W. Hamrick, 
John Burn 
L. P. Holland 
William Lineberger 
Ray D. Davis 
Roy D. Dedmon 
Yancy Ellis 
James W . Horn 

C. P. Roberts, Jr. 

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FROM: 

State of North Carolina 
Department of Conservation & Development 
Division of Community Planning 

George J. Monaghan, Administrator 

Piedmont Area Office 

Edward D. Baker, Director 
*Charles L. Sellers, Planner III 
Robert F. Saleeby, Chief Draftsman 
Paul L. Trexler, Draftsman II 
M. Eileen Antosek, Stenographer 

^Responsible for project 



Cha irma n 
Secretary 



January , 1965 



Price: $1.00 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



Page 

INTRODUCTION 1 

CHAPTER I OVERALL PATTERNS OF BLIGHT 4 

CHAPTER II ANALYSIS BY STUDY AREAS 15 

Study Area 2 16 

Study Area 3 21 

Study Area 4 25 

Study Area 5 29 

Study Area 6 34 

Study Area 7 38 

Study Area 8 42 

Study Area 9 46 

Study Area 10 50 

Study Area 11 54 

CHAPTER III CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 57 



TABLES 

I Housing Characteristics for Shelby 5 

II Value of Owner-Occupied Housing and 

Gross Rent of Renter-Occupied Housing 6 

III 1959 Housing Data for Shelby and 

Shelby Township - All Families 8 

IV 1959 Income Data for Shelby and 

Shelby Township - Non-Whites 9 

V School Grades Completed - Adults 

Twenty-five Years Old and Over 10 

VI Indices of Blight in Seven Problem 

Areas 66 



MAPS 



Foil ows Page 



9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 



Study Areas 

Selected Arrests 

Venereal Disease 

Public Assistance Cases 

Areas of Substandard Housing 

Residential Densities 

Substandard Streets 

Residential Fire Calls 

Legend for Land Use and Housing 
Conditions Maps 

Study Area 2 

Study Area 3 

Study Area 4 

Study Area 5 

Study Area 6 

Study Area 7 

Study Area 8 

Study Area 9 

Study Area 10 

Study Area 11 

Recommended Treatment Areas 
Suggested Garden Club Areas 
Redevelopment Area "B" (with legend 
Redevelopment Areas "A" and "C" 



3 
10 
1 1 
1 1 
12 
12 
13 
13 

15 
15 
20 
24 
28 
33 
37 
41 
45 
49 
53 
58 
61 
66 
66 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2014 



https://archive.org/details/neighborhoodana1965nort_0 



INTRODUCTION 



INTRODUCTION 



What is a neighborhood analysis and how can it influence the 
quality of housing and environmental conditions within a city? To 
answer the first question, a neighborhood analysis is a detailed 
examination of each neighborhood within a city with an eye toward 
uncovering its assets and liabilities, its amenities and problems. 
Emphasis is, quite naturally, placed on blighted neighborhoods 
since these areas will require the most extensive corrective meas- 
ures. The recommendation of corrective measures for such areas 
and the mechanisms through which they can be accomplished are the 
main contributions of the study. Then too, much data is collected 
which can be used in planning for public housing and perhaps even 
urban renewal. A broader, more subtle contribution of such a 
study is the motivation it gives private homeowners and landlords 
to rehabilitate their borderline housing with some assurance that 
their neighbors will be encouraged to do likewise. 

This Neighborhood Analysis is, because of its particular 
emphasis, the pivotal study in the Workable Program. It was pri- 
marily to up-grade housing and environmental conditions that the 
Workable Program was instituted. The Workable Program is defined 
as a plan of action whereby a community marshalls both public and 
private resources to eliminate existing slums and prevent creeping 
blight. Seven interrelated elements form the basic requirements 
of the Workable Program. They are as follows: 

1. Codes and Ordinances — especially building, 
plumbing, electrical and housing. 

2. Comprehensive Community Plan -- including the 
following aspects: 

a. a land development plan 

b. a major thoroughfare plan 

c. a community facilities plan 

These plans are put into effect through: 

a. a zoning ordinance 

b. subdivision regulations 

c. a capital improvements program 



3. Neighborhood Analysis — the present document 
with its recommendations for corrective action. 

4. Administrative Organization -- making proper 
use of municipal personnel in achieving goals. 

5. Financing -- costs of the Workable Program 
include expenditures for planning, code 
compliance and public improvements. 

6. Housing for Displaced Families a critical 
element which can usually be satisfied only 
by the provision of low-rent public housing. 

7. Citizen Participation — an arrangement whereby 
citizens can have a say in what is done to their 
neighborhoods . 

All of these elements are now operative in Shelby — or 
else they will be operative shortly. It will be apparent to 
the reader that only through a coordinated program such as 
that outlined above can a community hope to overcome the inertia 
and the fatalism which would otherwise permit blighted areas to 
remain as a drain on the community -- socially and economically. 

The approach taken in this study was to build on the in- 
formation and insights already acquired while compiling Shelby's 
Land Development Plan. The four classifications of housing used 
in that report are carried over to this one. They are: conserva- 
tion, the superior housing which needs only to be maintained; 
minor repair, the good housing which nevertheless needs painting 
or minor structural repairs; major repair, the rather shoddy 
housing which will require a major expense to rehabilitate; and 
dilapidated, housing that would cost more to rehabilitate than 
it is worth. For purposes of neighborhood delineation the same 
11 in-town study areas that were used in the Land Development 
Plan were used here. The scope of the study is limited to the 
city proper since it is only within the city proper that the 
minimum housing code and other tools apply. While it is recog- 
nized that these areas may not be the precise areas that resi- 
dents would call "their neighborhood" they seem logical from the 
standpoint of natural and man-made barriers. (See Map 1). 



_ 2 - 



An overall survey of the city's patterns of blight, as 
indicated by social and physical deficiencies, is presented 
in Chapter I. Chapter II treats the individual study areas 
or neighborhoods in terms of their present characteristics 
and future prospects. Chapter III sets forth policy guidelines 
along with recommendations concerning the techniques and tools 
needed to effectuate the up-grading processes which ought to 
apply to given areas. This chapter will try to answer the 
second question raised in the opening sentence. 

A few words of explanation are in order at this point 
concerning the designation of different areas for "conserva- 
tion", "minor rehabilitation", "major rehabilitation" or 
"clearance and redevelopment" treatment. This is done verbally 
in Chapters II and III and graphically on Map 18. One is re- 
minded of the famous Lincoln joke wherein he asked someone: 
"If you count a dog's tail as a leg, how many legs does a dog 
have?" The answer is "four" because calling a tail a leg 
does not make it one. The same goes for the designation of 
treatment areas. The labelling of such areas according to 
their quality does not automatically solve any of their environ- 
mental problems. The only value which these designations have, 
aside from the help they provide in selecting redevelopment 
and/ or public housing sites, is that they let property owners 
know how their neighborhood stacks up in comparison to the 
rest of the town. It also gives property owners and the City 
a pretty clear notion of the financial outlay and intensity of 
work which will be required to bring blighted neighborhoods up 
to par. The upcoming Community Facilities Plan, Capital Improve- 
ments Budget, and Public Improvements Program will provide more 
precise guidelines, including cost estimates, regarding the City's 
likely role in constructing neighborhood improvements. 



- 3 - 



SHELBY 



STUDY AREAS 




CHAPTER I 

OVERALL PATTERNS 

OF BLIGHT 



CHAPTER I 
OVERALL PATTERNS OF BLIGHT 

This chapter will assess the overall patterns of blight in 
Shelby. It will treat both social and physical indicators of 
blight, but this treatment will be of general or city-wide scope. 
Since it is virtually impossible to obtain data concerning the 
characteristics of families affected by poor housing on a neigh- 
borhood basis without making a house-to-house canvas, it has 
been decided to present the available data on the socio-economic 
concomitants of blight in this general chapter before turning 
to a more detailed analysis of each study area's physical char- 
acter. Maps will be relied on rather heavily to tell the story 
of blight in Shelby. 

Characteristics of Families Affected by Poor Housing 

Shelby had, according to the 1960 Census, 5,416 housing 
units. Of these 5,416 housing units, 5,190 were occupied. Of 
the 5,190 occupied housing units 2,854 (or 55%) were owner- 
occupied whereas 2,336 (or 45%) were renter-occupied. Of the 
2, 854 owner-occupied units 2,604 (or 917o) house whites and 250 
(or 9%) house non-whites. Of the 2,336 renter-occupied units 
1,599 (or 67%) house whites and 737 (or 33%) house non-whites. 

According to the 1960 Census of Housing, 4,085 of Shelby's 
5,416 housing units can be classified as "sound"; however, only 
3,777 of these "sound" units are equipped with all plumbing 
facilities. Shelby had 921 "deteriorating" housing units in 
1960, but 500 of these units were equipped with all plumbing 
facilities. There were also 410 dilapidated units -- making a 
total of 1,331 sub-standard housing units (or 25%, of the total 
housing inventory). It appears that 754 (or 56.65%) of the 
1,331 sub-standard housing units are occupied by whites while 
577 (or 43 .357o) of them are occupied by non-whites. Table I 
summarizes the condition of housing and size of household figures 
which are available from the Census. 

- 4 - 



TABLE I 



HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS FOR SHELBY 



Total White Non-White 





All Housing Units 




5,416 




4,429 987 




Sound 




4,085 




3,675 410 






With all plumbing 


3 ,777 




3.526 251 






Lacking some 


plumbing 308 




149 159 




Deteriorating 




921 




617 304 






With all plumbing 


500 




460 40 






Lacking some 


plumbing 421 




157 264 




Dil 


apida ted 




410 




137 273 




Population in Housing 


Units 17,614 




13,621 3,993 




Per 


occupied unit 




3.25 




O f\ ft / f\ f 

3.08 4.05 










Number of Units 


Year Structure 


Number of 


rooms per unit 




in Structure: 




Built : 


1 


r oom 


64 units 




1 unit 




832 


2 


r o oms 


108 units 




2 unit 




279 1955 to March, 


3 


rooms 


677 units 




3 & 4 unit 




108 1960 699 


4 


r o oms 


1,274 units 




5 or more 




152 1950-54 778 


5 


r o oms 


1,568 units 




Trailer 




45 1940-49 998 


6 


r ooms 


930 units 








1939 or 


7 


r ooms 


3 66 uni ts 




Total 


5, 


416 earlier 2,941 


8 


or more 


429 units 










Me d ian 


4.9 r o oms 












While 


the foregoing 


information is not 


geared strictly to 



slum areas, and while it does not quantify or prove the degree 
of overcrowding which is characteristic of such areas, it may 
be interesting as an overall measure of housing quality. Table II, 
which relates the value of owner-occupied housing and the gross 
rents paid for rental housing, may serve the same purpose. 



The tremendous difference between the median value of white 
and non-white owner-occupied homes ($6,600) is noteworthy; how- 
ever, the disparity between gross rents does not seem to reflect 
the actual disparity between the quality of the accommodations 
offered to members of the two races. In other words, non-whites 
are paying two-thirds as much as whites for quarters which are, 
in many cases, less than two-thirds as good. 



TABLE II 



VALUE OF OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING AND 
GROSS RENT OF RENTER-OCCUPIED HOUSING 



Total Non-Wh i te 

Value 



Owner Occupied : 


2,710 


476 


Less than $j,U(JU 


O Q 

j z y 


O O Q 

2. J o 


$5,000 to $7,400 


559 ) 


110 


$7,500 to $9,900 


j 9 9 ; 




$10,000 to $12,400 


407 ) 


1 1 1 


$12,500 to $14,900 


220 ) 


112 


$15,000 to $19,900 


280 


12 


$20,000 to $24,900 


13 1 


4 


$25,000 or more 


185 




Median Dollars 


$9,200 


$2,600 


Gross Rent 






J\ C 11 L C L ULL-up It U . 




7^7 


Lc b b LIld.ll yZ.W 


? 9 


1 6 


$20 to $39 


510 


385 


$40 to $59 


823 


256 


$60 to $79 


609 


48 


$80 to $99 


178 




$100 to $119 


53 




$120 or more 


36 




No Cash Rent 


98 


32 


Median Dol lar s 


$54 


$39 



A consideration of housing values and gross rents leads 
logically to a consideration of income levels. Two questions 
are germane at this point: (1) What constitutes poverty in 
Shelby? and (2) How is poverty related to slum areas? Using 
the national breaking point we could say that families having 
less than $3,000 annual income are living in poverty depending, 
of course on the size of the family. Some two-member families 
can maintain a decent standard of living on less than $3,000 
per year and some large families may not be able to do so on 
$5,000. (The matriarchal nature of many non-white families 
further complicates the income picture.) According to this use- 



- 6 - 



ful criteria Shelby has 1,303 impoverished families (or 28.1% 
of its total families). Further analysis reveals that these 
1,303 families share only 8.5% of the total income for the City. 
By way of contrast, the 751 families with incomes of $8,000 and 
over (who constitute only 16.2% of the families) share 39.6% of 
the total income. The middle income group (those with annual 
incomes of $3,000 to $7,999) embraces 55.7% of the families in 
Shelby; its members earn 51.97o of the total income. 

It is more than coincidental that there are 1,303 impover- 
ished families in Shelby and 1,331 sub-standard dwelling units. 
The correspondence between low incomes and poor housing may not, 
in actuality, be as perfect as these two figures make it seem, 
but a high degree of correspondence is undeniable. In 1959 
Shelby's white families enjoyed a median income of $5,235 where- 
as the non-whites averaged only $2,124. For Shelby Township the 
figures were $4,602 and $2,033, respectively. Tables III and IV 
give additional information on the distribution of income for 
Shelby and the Township. The distribution of income by thousand 
dollar increments should be of special interest since it gives 
some clue as to the market for new homes and rental units. 

The median educational level for Shelby is 10.2 years of 
schooling completed by adults twenty-five years of age and older 
However, this figure must be divided into its racial components 
to clarify its bearing on slum areas. Shelby's white adults 
have completed 10.9 years of school to the non-white adults' 
7.2 years. Those adults who have not completed the fourth 
grade are considered "functional illiterates." The percentage 
of adults with four years of schooling or less is 13.9. The 
percentage with 5-7 years of schooling (including those who 
barely missed completing the eighth grade) is 22.2. The corres- 
ponding figures for the Township are 16.1% with four years or 
less and 27 . 57 Q with 5-7 years. Shelby's drop-out rate was 1.8% 
for both races. This was better than the State average (2.1%), 
but is still lamentable. Table V gives a comprehensive break- 
down of educational attainment. 



TABLE III 



1959 INCOME DATA FOR SHELBY AND SHELBY TOWNSHIP - 

ALL FAMILIES 



Shelby City Remainder of Shelby Twp. 



All Fami lies 


4 


,643 


2 ,007 






Under 


$ 1 , 000 




294 


221 






$1 ,000 


to $1,999 




477 


192 






9 Z , UUU 


t- n 5 9 QQQ • 
CO ^/)777 




532 


258 






$3 ,000 


to $3,999 




654 


319 






$4, 000 


to $4,999 




610 


2 7 






$5,000 


to $5,999 




578 


247 






$6 , 000 


to $6,999 




460 


149 






$7,000 


to $7,999 




287 


126 






$8,000 


to $8,999 




221 


63 






$9,000 


to $9,999 




115 


69 






$10,000 


to $14,999 




254 


6 5 






$15,000 


to $24,999 




113 


24 






$25 , 000 


and over 




48 


4 






Total Family Income 


$25,730,000 


$9,242, 


UUU 




Median Family Income 


$ 


4,598 


$ 4, 


5 




Mean Family 


Income 


$ 


5,542 


$ 4, 


605 




Total Personal Income 


$26,656,280 


$9,574, 


7 12 




Per Capita 


Inc ome 


$ 


1 ,506 


$ I, 


1 1 1 




Number and 


Per Cent of 












Families with Income: 














Number 


Per Cent 


Number Per Cent 


Under $3,000 1, 


303 


28.1 


671 


33 . 


4 


$3 , 000 


to $7,999 2, 


589 


55.7 


1,111 


55. 


4 


$8,000 


and over 


751 


16.2 


225 


11 . 


2 


Per Cent of 


Inc ome : 












Under $3,000 




8.5 




11 . 


3 


$3 , 000 


to $7,999 




51.9 




60. 


6 


$8,000 


and over 




39.6 




28. 


1 



Source: U. S. Census 



- 8 - 



TABLE IV 1959 INCOME DATA FOR SHELBY AND SHELBY TOWNSHIP 

NON-WHITES 



Shelby City 



Remainder of Shelby Twp 



Non-White Families 



Under 
$ 1 , 000 
$2,000 
$3 , 000 
$4,000 
$5,000 
$6,000 
$7 ,000 
$8,000 
$9,000 
$10,000 



$1 , 000 
to $1,999 
to $2,999 
to $3,999 
to $4,999 
to $5,999 
to $6,999 
to $7,999 
to $8,999 
to $9,999 
and over 



Total Family Income 
Median Family Income 
Mean Family Income 
Total Personal Income 
Per Capita Income 



870 

153 
258 
194 
126 
80 
24 
12 

20 
3 



$2, 158,000 
$ 2,124 
$ 2,480 
$2 , 235 , 688 
$ 558 



334 

92 
72 
92 
52 
14 
8 
4 



$699,000 
$ 2,033 
$ 2,093 
$724,164 
$ 366 



Number and Per Cent of 
Families with Income: 



Under $3,000 
$3,000 to $7,999 
$8,000 and over 

Per Cent of Income: 

Under $3,000 
$3,000 to $7,999 
$8,000 and over 



Numbe r 



605 
242 
23 



Per Cent 



69.5 
27 . 8 
2.7 



44.0 
46. 8 
9.2 



Numbe r 



256 
78 



Per Cent 



76.6 
23 . 4 



54.9 
45. 1 



Source: Uo So Census 



- 9 - 



CO 




S3 








PC 














■ i 
i-d 


o 


CD 


o 




o 




H" 








i— ■ 








c 


&• 






1 — 1 1 — 1 




00 








fD 






CO 




H" 


k; 




<_o I— 1 




PT 




<_n 


1 — 1 


3 






t -1 


o 


09 


fD 




1 fD 




1 




1 




fD 






HiH 


fD 


3 


0) 
r( 

03 


1 — 1 

ON 

+ 


I— 1 00 
l_n fD 


I — 1 
tsJ 


1 — 1 CO 

i— ' o 
3" 
O 


CO 


\l 


4> 


ntar 






<; 






O 








O 
















O 




O 








1 — 1 
















*o 




3 
















CO 








C 




T) 




• 












o 








i — 1 




i — 1 
















3* 








Oj 




fD 
















O 








rt 




rt 
















O 








H« 




ID 
















t-* 


o o 






O 






















O l-f 






3 










1 — 1 


1 — 1 




ro 


i — 1 




C fD 
3 < 




CO 


03 


00 




-P- 


ON 


00 


ON 


CO 


ON 






rt fD 




PC 


3 


• 


• 


o 


• 


• 


• 


* 


o 


• 








o 


C3- 


ON 


ON 


vO 




ON 


ON 


CO 


-P" 






an 




o 

1 — 1 
























a 






O 


























d J 


o 




























3 






















CO O /~\ 


CO 




O 










N3 


t— 1 




ro 


1 1 




3" H- fD 


3" 


o 


3 


00 


LO 




ON 


O 




NO 








ft) rt X 


fD 




"<! 


• 




* 


o 


• 


* 


o 


* 


° 






I — 1 


CO 






I— 1 




-P> 


o 




o 




o 




cr i-- 


cr 




po 






















^ o c 


*<! 




fD 






















l-h Cl 




o 


*0 






















H- 






O 






















3 


C 


























00 




M 


rt 






















































H 




























a 
























H 


f — , 
L J 




(D 


1 — 1 








ro 


1 — 1 




ro 


r— 1 




O 


H' 


E 




o 


to 




vO 


O 




CO 


ro 


1 — 1 




rt 


rt 




0) 


* 


• 


• 


• 


e 


• 


• 


• 


o 




03 




> 




ro 




00 




00 


CO 




ro 






i— 1 




a 


























O 


























SJ 


Hi 


LT 


cr 


I— 1 






I— 1 


ro 


I— 1 




ro 






3^ 


CO 


CO 


^< 


o 


1 — 1 


00 


1 — 1 




00 




o 


vD 




H" 


3* 
















o 






» 




rt 


fD 


H 


a 






I— 1 


N3 


ON 


U) 


00 


ro 


ro 




fD 


I — 1 


s: 


























cr 




< 


























a 
























s: s 




H 


Cfl 












h- 1 


t— ■ 




ro 




O 




i-< 


H» 


^1 




ON 


O 


00 




o 


o 


ro 




(-■• 3 






O 


• 


° 


• 


• 


■ 


• 


• 


• 


e 




rt 1 




ni 


3 


ro 


o 






ON 


CO 


1 — 1 


00 


Ln 




fD 




l — i 

< 


O 




























t-h 










1 — 1 


1 — 1 




ro 


1 — 1 




CO 

rt 


No 


k! 


C J 


00 




ON 


^1 


00 








LO 




03 


i-i 




O 


* 


• 


• 

U3 


o 


• 


• 


• 


e 


e 




rt 


rt 


P> 




V0 




1—* 


vO 


o 




o 


-P- 




fD 


3° 


to 


3 


























CO 


£ 
























O 




3 






















a 


03 


o 


























i-i 


f 


rt 


O 


K3 


vO 


o 


o 






I— 1 


o 




cr 


o 


o 




o 


o 








• 





• 


• 


• 




03 


I— 1 






-P- 


Ui 






CO 


-p- 




ro 


ON 




3 


H- 


p> 


























3 




i— 1 
























03 


o 


0) 






















PC 






3 










(— 1 


h- ' 




ro 


1— ' 




£ 




o 


3 


00 


CO 








ON 




00 


Ln 




i-i 




< 


H« 


• 


• 


• 


« 


• 


• 


• 


e 







03 




M 


3 






00 




Cn 




^1 




-P- 




h- 1 




fa 



- 10 - 




MAP- 



Social Indicators of Blight 

Social disorganization, public health problems and economic 
dependency are three of the most common bed-fell ows of blight. 
Examples of social disorganization and public health problems 
which are usually found more frequently in blighted areas than 
in the community at large are: crime (both adult and juvenile), 
divorce and desertion, illegitimate births, venereal disease, 
tuberculosis and infant deaths. We might also expect economic 
dependency, as measured by welfare case loads, to be concentrated 
in blighted areas. No attempt has been made in this study to 
plot and interpret the spatial distribution of all of the fore- 
named indicators of blight, but merely to give a sampling which 
will establish the overall pattern of blight for the city. 

Map 2 shows the distribution of arrests by officers of the 
Shelby Police Department during the year 1963 according to the 
place of residence of the party arrested. There is, it should 
be noted, some duplication; some individuals were arrested more 
than once during the year, but this should not materially affect 
the pattern which emerges. Map 2 shows arrests on all charges 
except public drunkenness and minor traffic violations. (The 
only traffic violations plotted were drunk driving and hit and 
run.) Arrests for public drunkenness were excluded because they 
formed at least one-third of the total. It was felt that the 
plotting of these arrests would simply solidify the dot patterns 
in certain areas. It will be noted that four areas stand out in 
the number of arrests made in 1963 . These are: (1) the Creeks ide- 
Flat Rock Area, (2) the area between the railroad tracks and 
Suttle Street, (3) the West Shelby neighborhood which extends in 
a southwesterly direction from Graham Street to Royster Street, 
and (4) the area around Weathers and Antrum Streets. All but 
the West Shelby neighborhood are predominantly non-white areas. 



- 11 - 




MAP- 3 



SHELBY 



Public Assistance 



Cases 




MAP-4 



No attempt was made to plot the distribution of divorces 
or desertions , illegitimate births or infant deaths. It was 
felt that these tragedies ought not to be paraded on maps. 
Furthermore, official statistics might be understated because 
of events happening elsewhere to persons normally resident in 
Shelby, Attempts were made to plot the distribution of vener- 
eal disease and tuberculosis cases. * The tuberculosis cases 
did not follow any definite pattern (perhaps because the period 
studied was not long enough), but the venereal disease cases 
showed up in the same areas where arrests were most commonly 
made. It was deemed advisable to include a map showing this 
conjunctive situation, namely Map 3. 

Map 4 shows the distribution of public assistance cases as 
of May, 1964. All categories of welfare aid are included so 
there may be some duplication where a family receives more than 
one kind of assistance. The pattern which emerges is similar 
to that of arrests, but is much more widespread. The greatest 
concentration of welfare cases seems to be in Study Area 2 
(between Grover and Suttle Streets). The second most concen- 
trated area is the Cr ee ks ide-F 1 a t Rock Area, followed closely 
by the West Shelby Area (plus Live Oak Street and South DeKalb). 
The Jamestown Area has a large number of cases for its size 
while South Shelby (a relatively large area with mediocre hous- 
ing) has remarkably few cases. There are other areas with a 
scattering of recipients, but these can hardly be considered 
b 1 igh te d areas. 



Physical Indicators of Blight 

The physical indicators of blight which will be considered 
here are sub-standard housing, sub-standard streets and fire 
calls. 

Map 5 shows the overall pattern of sub-standard housing 
both within Shelby proper and within its fringe area. It also 
shows non-white neighborhoods in relation to study area boundarie 



- 12 - 



SHELBY 

North Carolina 



AREAS OF SUBSTANDARD 
HOUSING 




LEGEND 



NON-WHITE NEIGHBORHOODS 



AREAS WITH MOSTLY SUBSTANDARD HOUSING 



MAP-5 



SHELBY 



Residential 



Densities 




More detail concerning sub-standard housing is given on the 
patterned maps of the individual study areas. Map 6 shows 
the density of population on a b 1 ock-by-b 1 ock basis — or at 
least within logically bounded, small areas. This map will 
be especially meaningful when studied in connection with the 
"family characteristics" tables in Chapter II. The overcrowd- 
ing of single-family dwellings by two or more families is not 
reflected in these tables, but it can be assumed that this 
phenomenon is quite common in non-white areas. Whereas duplexes 
and apartment buildings may have no ill effects on an area, 
the overcrowding of dwellings which are equipped for one or 
two families by several is sure to start a good neighborhood 
on a decline or to bring about the ruination of an already 
marginal neighborhood. 

Sub-standard streets are shown on Map 7. Actually, two 
factors are at work here: sub-standard pavement widths and 
sub-standard surfacing. The map attempts to show the pattern 
exhibited by both of these deficiencies. It will be apparent 
to the reader that narrow, unpaved streets are more likely to 
have sub-standard dwellings along them than wide, paved streets 
(either initially or as a matter of evolution). Then too, 
poor streets usually indicate that other community facilities, 
such as sidewalks, may be deficient. Most of Shelby's overly 
narrow or unpaved streets are located in non-white areas. 

The spatial distribution of fire calls did not prove to 
be very significant. Perhaps a clearer pattern would have 
emerged if more than one year's calls had been plotted and if 
commercial calls had been counted. It will be noted from 
Map 8 that the worst part of town for fire calls in 1963 was 
the area between the railroad tracks, Suttle Street, Wilson 
and Mint Streets. The second worst area was the Creeks ide- 
Flat Rock area. The third worst area was the West Shelby 
area. A surprise was the substitution of an area north of 
Grover Street between First and Glendale Streets for the much 



- 13 - 



SHELBY 



Substandard 



Streets 




LEGEND 

QEFICIPN7 PAVEMENT V/IPTH 
DEFICIENT SURFACING 

DEFICIENT PAVEMENT WIDTH OR TRAVEL- 
WAY AND SURFACING MAP - 7 



SHELBY Residential Fire calls 




• = ONE MAJOR FIRE CALL 

• = ONE MINOR FIRE CALL 

MAP- 8 



shoddier area between Grover Street and the railroad tracks. 
Another surprise was the small number of fires in South Shelby 
Local fire fighters declare that the type of heating equipment 
installed in a given dwelling has more to do with its suscepti 
bility to catch fire than any other factor; and, the more 
primitive and dangerous types of heating equipment are usually 
found in the more ramshackle types of housing, 



- 14 - 



CHAPTER II 
ANALYSIS BY STUDY AREAS 



CHAPTER II 
ANALYSIS BY STUDY AREAS 



It will be the purpose of this chapter to delve rather deeply 
into the physical and social makeup of the various neighborhoods 
comprising Shelby. Emphasis will, however, be on the physical 
characteristics since the social characteristics have already 
been covered, at least in a general way, in Chapter I. As 
already mentioned, the study areas utilized in this report are 
the same ones used in the Shelby Land Use Survey and Development 
Plan . This continuity seems desirable. Study Area #1, the 
Central Business District, is not a neighborhood but rather a 
special purpose district; hence, it is not considered in this 
study. A special study of this important area should be made 
at some future time. 

Factors discussed in connection with each neighborhood are 
as foil ows : 

(1) Boundaries and Terrain 

(2) Land Use Characteristics 

(3) Thoroughfares and Other Streets 

(4) Community Facilities 

(5) Condition of Structures 

(6) Family Characteristics 

(7) Factors Contributing to Blight 

(8) Assets of the Area 

(9) Future Development Pattern 
(10) Recommended Treatment 



Most of the foregoing headings will be self-explanatory, but 
a few deserve some explanation. The discussion of "Community 
Facilities" will emphasize cultural facilities (schools, play- 
grounds and club houses) and sidewalks. Utilities, including 
water lines, sanitary sewers and storm drainage, gas and elec- 
tricity, and street lights are basically adequate for the whole 
city, but deviations from this norm will be noted. The dis- 
cussion of "Family Characteristics" will treat the number of 



- 15 - 



LEGEND FOR MAPS 9 THRU l8 




MAJOR LAND USE CATEGORIES 
PRODUCTION 



(includes heavy and light manufacturing facilities, 
warehouses, greenhouses and junk yards) 

BUS I NESS 



(INCLUDES RETAIL AND WHOLESALE TRADE FACILITIES 
AND RELATED PARKING LOTs) 



L * ■» . f. 



SERVICES 



(INCLUDES PERSONAL, PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS SERVICES 
AS WELL AS PUBLIC UTILITIES, AND TRANSPORTATION 
I NSTALLAT I ONS) 

SOCIAL AND CULTURAL 

(includes public buildings, hospitals, SCHOOLS AND 

PARKS, AS WELL AS CLUBS AND CHURCHES) 

HOUSING CONDITIONS AND TYPES 
O CONSERVATION 
• MINOR REPAIR 
^ MAJOR REPAIR 
+ DILAPIDATED 
T = TRAILER HOUSES 



V = ABANDONED HOUSES 

GA = GARAGE APARTMENTS 

HO = HOME OCCUPATIONS 
, etc. = NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS IN MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURE 
CITY LIMITS 



STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES 



STUDY AREA 2 
EXISTING LAND USE & HOUSING CONDITIONS 

S H E L D Y 

North Carolina 




MAP-9 



white and non-white families affected by sub-standard housing 
conditions or multi-family living. This is not meant to imply 
that there is anything wrong with multi-family living. This 
information is included under "Family Characteristics" for the 
sake of convenience. The discussion of each area's "Future 
Development Pattern" takes into consideration its zoning. The 
zoning of a given area will certainly have a great deal to do 
with its ultimate development. That is the way it should be. 
The "Recommended Treatment" for different parts of a study area 
will be either rehabilitation (major or minor) or clearance 
and redevelopment (either partial or total). 



STUDY AREA 2 



Study Area 2 is bounded by the Seaboard Airline Railroad 
tracks and by Hudson and Grover Streets on the north, by Line- 
berger Street on the east, by Suttle, Dorton and Sumter Streets 
on the south, and by the Southern Railway tracks on the west. 
There is a creek valley in the center of the area, but otherwise 
the area lies comparatively flat. 



Land Use Characteristics 

Only 15.3 4% of the total acreage in Study Area 2 is now 
undeveloped for urban uses. The predominant use of land is 
residential with 51.7 4% of the developed acreage. As a matter 
of fact, the highest residential densities in Shelby are found 
within this area. Transportation uses (involving considerable 
railroad right-of-way) take up 26.63% of the developed acreage. 
There is considerable business activity within the area, mostly 
on Lafayette, Washington, Carolina, Buffalo, Lineberger and 
Grover Streets. All of these streets are important radial or 
crosstown routes. The passage of two railroads through the 



- 16 - 



area accounts for the substantial amount of industrial activity 
which is in evidence. The acreage devoted to public and semi- 
public uses is deficient considering the demands placed on the 
community facilities which are found in the area. The following 
table summarizes the land use characteristics of Study Area 2: 







Per Cent of 


Per Cent of 






Total 


De ve loped 


Land Use : 


Acres 


Area 


Acreage 


Res idential 


115.44 


43 . 81 


51.74 


C omme r c i a 1 


21 .96 


8.33 


9.81 


Industrial 


18.29 


6 .94 


8.19 


Pub lie, etc. 


7 . 94 


3.01 


3 .55 


Transportation 


59. 44 


22.55 


26.63 


Vacant 


40.43 


15.34 


00 


Tota 1 


263 . 50 


99.98 


99.92 



Thoroughfares and Other Streets 

The only major thoroughfares which pass through Study Area 
2 are Lafayette Street (N. C. 18) and Grover Street (also N. C. 
18). The former carried about 7,100 vehicles per day in 1962 
whereas the latter carried about 5,800. Other important streets 
are Morgan, Washington, Buffalo, Carolina, Lineberger, Frederick, 
and Weathers. None of them has a divisive effect. 

There are 1.82 miles of unpaved streets in the area and 
almost 10 % of these are minor side streets providing access to 
non-white dwellings. Some of these dirt streets are not only 
dusty or muddy, depending on the season, they are chaotically 
laid out. Dead-ends are numerous and so are jogs. 

Community Facilities 

The Cleveland Training School, a combined elementary- 
secondary school for non-white children, is located within the 
area. It is woefully inadequate to serve the student load which 
is placed on it. The site is much too small (3.2 acres) to 



- 17 - 



serve its current (1963-64) enrollment of 906 students. Play- 
ground facilities are inadequate for the students let alone 
the whole neighborhood. There is also a Negro Branch Library 
in the area, but it is housed in what looks like an old mill. A 
fine community center will be built in connection with the new 
Antrum-Logan Streets Public Housing Project. This will be a 
decided asset to the area. Additional sidewalks are badly needed, 
and there should certainly be a few more street lights in the 
area. Storm drainage is bad because of creek filling. 

Condition of Structures 

With 58. 57o of its total housing inventory falling within 
the sub-standard classification (and 827*. of its non-white hous- 
ing) it is obvious that this area is one of the most blighted in 
Shelby. According to the following table, even the non-residen- 
tial structures located in the area seem to be deteriorating. 



Standard 



Sub-S tandar d 



Tota 1 

Structures 



Con- 
serve 



Minor 



Ma j or 



Dilap- 
idated 



Per Cent 

Sub - 

s tandar d 



Residential : 


764 




19 




298 




378 




69 




58. 


50 




White 




313 




18 




217 




74 




4 




24. 


92 


Non-Wh i te 




451 




1 




81 




304 




65 




81 . 


81 


C omme r c i a 1 


53 




10 




24 




18 




1 




35. 


84 




Industrial 


25 




5 




12 




6 




2 




32 . 


00 




Pub lie, etc. 


17 




1 




7 




9 









52. 


94 




Total 


859 




35 




341 




411 




72 




56 . 


22 





Family Characteristics 

It will be noted from the table on the following page that 
non-whites outnumber whites by a ratio of about 5:3. The area has 
a large number of duplexes. 



- 18 - 







N on- 






White 


Wh i te 


Total 


Quality of Residence: 


Families 


Families 


F am i 1 ie s 


Standard Housing 


242 


89 


331 


ouu — s i_ a n u a r u noua i iig 


7 7 


U H 


U ft 1 

H- O 1 


T/^t-ol Ht.to 1 1 inn Tin 1 h c 

local uwe i i mg un i is 


j j. ? 


H 7 J 


ft 1 9 

O 1 £ 


Per Cent of Families 








T i it i Tf-» f~t t i—i C ii l-i o f - o T-i r\ —> T" /H 

jj i v mg in juu™b Lanuai u 








None i no 1 


24.13 


8 1 o 94 


5 9.23 


IN U III Del Ui r clIlL X L 1 c S 








jjiving in Eiuiti-r amiiy 








H ou s i ng : 








Two-family units 


8 


88 


96 


Three or more units 


6 





6 


Total 


14 


88 


102 



Factors Contributing to Blight : 

(1) Generally dilapidated housing in the non-white areas, 
much of it overcrowded, plus heedless dumping of 
trash and discarded appliances in backyards and the 
creek. These conditions typify low income areas. 

(2) Poorly platted lots and narrow, dirt streets in parts 
of the area. In some cases three houses may be built 
on a single lot so that the back ones have no access 
by driveway to a publicly-dedicated street. 

(3) Inadequate community facilities, Cleveland Training 
School being the prime example; also, inadequate 
playgrounds and sidewalks. 

(4) The dilapidated nature of many of the businesses which 
cater to non-whites , especially those on Carolina 
Avenue, and the industrial buildings near the railroad 
tracks . 

(5) Strip and spot commercial development, especially 
along Buffalo and Grover Streets, and lack of proper 
buffering between residential and other uses. 



Assets of the Area : 

(1) Strategic location, especially for business purposes. 

(2) Proximity to shopping districts and cultural facilities. 

(3) Some pleasant, tree-shaded streets and some nice homes. 

(4) Availability, if not existence, of necessary utilities. 



- 19 - 



Future Development Pattern 

The southwestern corner of Study Area 2 (south of the rail- 
road tracks and west of Wilson Street) is already quite mixed in 
its uses. It is expected that most of the homes presently in 
this area will gradually and properly be replaced by businesses. 
The area between Wilson and Lineberger Streets and from Suttle 
Street to the railroad tracks should, for the most part, be re- 
developed for medium-density residential use. Except for the 
industrial corridor along the railroad tracks and three small 
business districts, the balance of the study area (i.e., the 
portion north of the tracks) will continue in medium-density 
residential use. 

Recommended Treatment 

Reference to Map 19 will show that a substantial portion 
of Study Area 2 is recommended for redevelopment. The core of 
the slum area lying south of the railroad tracks should be cleared, 
including the businesses on Carolina Avenue but excluding the 
standard homes on Oakland, Mint and Suttle Streets, and redevel- 
oped. A sizeable tract within the n or th- of - the - tr a cks area is 
already slated to become a public housing project. Hopefully, 
this facility will encourage the up-grading of the surrounding 
properties. Nevertheless, where voluntary rehabilitation is 
unable to improve conditions, "spot" clearance by code enforce- 
ment should be used. The balance of the area will require major 
rehabilitation to keep it from slipping into the same doldrums 
as the two blighted areas are in. 



- 20 - 



STUDY AREA 3 
EXISTING LAND USE & HOUSING CONDITIONS 

S H E L 6 V 

North Carolina 




MAP- 10 



STUDY AREA 3 



Study Area 3 is bounded by Suttle Street on the north, by 
Chestnut and Graham Streets and Hickory Creek on the east, by 
two creeks and a line connecting them on the south, and by Juan 
Place and Juan Place extended north and south on the west. The 
area is bisected along a north-south axis by a sizeable creek, 
so it is quite hilly. 

Land Use Characteristics 

Some 22.72% of the acreage in Study Area 3 is undeveloped. 
Some of this land is occupied by creek bottoms and will never 
be developed. Far and away the predominant land use is resi- 
dential ■ — with 70. 78% of the developed acreage. Transportation 
uses occupy 20.55% of the developed acreage while commercial and 
public uses take up only 7.5% between them and industrial uses 
hardly make a showing. Most of the commercial uses are located 
on busy Marion Street, although some grocery stores and launder- 
ies occupy "back-street" locations. The following table summar- 
izes the land use picture; 







Per Cent of 


Per Cent of 






Total 


De ve 1 ope d 


Land Use : 


Acres 


Area 


Acreage 


Re s ident ia 1 


152.91 


54.70 


70.78 


C omme r c ia 1 


9.36 


3.34 


4.33 


Indus trial 


2.50 


0.89 


1.15 


Pub lie, etc. 


6 . 83 


2 . 44 


3 . 16 


Transportation 


44.41 


15.88 


20.55 


Vacant 


63.51 


22.72 


00 


Total 


279.52 


99.97 


99.97 



Thoroughfares and Other Streets 

The only major thoroughfares which serve Study Area 3 are 
Marion and Graham Streets and Kings Road. Marion Street carried 
8,900 vehicles per day in 1962 (more than the Bypass) while 



- 21 - 



Graham Street and Kings Road carried only 1,900 vehicles per 
day. Other important streets are Suttle, Chestnut and Warren. 
The realization of the Major Thoroughfare Plan will bring about 
a crosstown collector street roughly paralleling the creek on 
its e as tern s ide . 

There are 1.36 miles of unpaved streets in the area, but 
some of these are merely alleys. The street pattern is basi- 
cally good except in the Hunter Street School area. 



Community Facilities 

There is one school in the study area, namely Hunter 
Street, a non-white elementary school. It is relatively new 
and well equipped. However, it is crowded both inside and out. 
First-graders were able to attend for only one-half day during 
the 1963-64 school year. The site is only 1.8 acres and there- 
fore lacks the necessary play space. The only other community 
facility within the area is the County Jail. The study area 
receives a full complement of utilities and services. Side- 
walks and street lights are inadequate. Storm drainage is 
hampered by creek-filling. 



Condition of Structures 

It will be noted from the table below that just over 84% 
of the n on-wh i te - o c cup ie d dwellings in this area have been 
classified sub-standard. Only about 12% of the non-white dwell- 
ings are sub-standard. Most of the businesses and other non- 
residential structures are in pretty good condition. 

Standard Sub-Standard Per Cent 



Total Con- Minor Major Dilap- Sub- 

Structures serve Repair Repair idated s tandar d 

Residential: 718 223 250 187 58 34.12 

White 497 223 215 57 2 11.87 

Non-White 221 35 130 56 84.16 

Commercial 25 11 9 4 1 20.00 

Industrial 00 

Public, etc. 15 4 6 4 1 33.33 

Total 758 238 265 195 60 33.64 



- 22 - 



Family Characteristics 



Whites outnumber non-whites by about 2:1. This area has 
many duplexes and a significant number of apartment houses. 
The following table provides more details. 







Non- 






White 


Wh i te 


Total 


Quality of Residence: 


Fami lies 


Fami lies 


Fami lies 


Standard Housing 


444 


37 


481 


Sub-standard Housing 


58 


208 


266 


Total Dwelling Units 


502 


245 


1 hi 


Per Cent of Families 








Living in Sub-standard 








Hous ing 


11.55 


88. 29 


35.60 


Number of Families 








Living in Multi-Family 








Housing: 








Two-family units 





34 


34 


Three or more units 


8 


8 


16 


Total 


8 


42 


50 



Factors Contributing to Blight : 

(1) Generally dilapidated housing in the non-white area, 
plus heedless dumping of trash and discarded appliances 
in backyards and the creek. 

(2) Dilapidated out-buildings and some abandoned houses. 

(3) More than one principal structure on some lots with 
some houses fronting on alleys; some unpaved streets. 

(4) Mixed land uses, especially in the area east of the 
creek between Suttle and Graham Streets. 

(5) The relatively low incomes of the area's residents. 

(6) Health hazards due to overcrowding and poor sanitary 
arr angeme n ts . 

Assets of the Area : 

(1) Proximity to downtown and elementary schools. 

(2) Some pleasant, tree-shaded streets and some nice homes. 

(3) The relatively attractive businesses on Marion Street. 

(4) The creek bottom and the bluff lying eastward have some 
potential for development as a parkway. 



- 23 - 



Future Development Pattern 

The area between Graham and Marion Streets and between down- 
town and the creek is zoned for general business use although it 
is possible that the lower portion of the block bounded by Graham 
and Warren Streets (i.e. , from Mescal Street to the creek) might 
be re-useable for public housing. There is a corridor of Resi- 
de n t ia 1=0 f f i ce zoning on Marion Street and a pocket of R-8 zoning 
(which allows duplexes but not apartment houses) along Kings 
Road, but the balance of the area falls into the R-6 zone where 
multi-family housing is likely. 

Recommended Treatment 

As already stated above, it is recommended that the major- 
ity of the Flat Rock-Cr ee ks ide area be included in a clearance 
and redevelopment project. This clearance could, however, be 
selective rather than wholesale. The standard homes on Graham, 
Holland, and Pinckney Streets might be salvaged — along with, 
of course, Hunter Street School. The balance of the study area 
can probably get along with minor rehabilitation, although there 
will be isolated homes which will require major rehabilitation. 
(See Map 19.) 



- 24 - 



STUDY AREA 4 
EXISTING LAND USE & HOUSING CONDITIONS 

S H E L D Y 

North Carolina 




MAP- II 



STUDY AREA. 4 



Study Area 4 is bounded by Blanton and Mitchell Streets (and 
a line connecting them) as well as two creeks (and a line connect- 
ing them) on the north, by Kings Road, McGowan Road and a creek on 
the east, by the Bypass on the south, and by a creek, LeGrand and 
McBrayer Streets on the west- Hickory Creek bisects the eastern 
part of the area — — causing it to be somewhat rolling. 

Land Use Characteristics 

About 507. of the acreage within Study Area 4 is undeveloped 
for urban uses, and some of this undeveloped land should never be 
developed because of the ever-present danger of its being flooded. 
The predominant land use is residential — with 45 . 247. of the 
developed acreage« Streets and railroads take up another 29.44% 
of the developed area. Commercial facilities are fairly important 
inasmuch as they occupy 30 acres (or 14.57. of the developed acre- 
age). Many of these commercial uses are automotive. Almost 21 
acres (representing 107. of the developed acreage) are devoted to 
industrial uses including three textile mills and two oil bulk 
plants. There are some buffering and blight problems in this 
connection. Public and semi-public uses are of minor importance. 
The following table summarizes the land use pictures 



Per Cent of 
Tota 1 



Per Cent of 
De ve 1 ope d 



Land Use : 


Acres 


Area 




Acreage 


Re s ident ia 1 


93.92 


22 . 


34 


45. 24 


C ommer c ia 1 


30.11 


7 . 


16 


14.49 


Indus trial 


20. 83 


4. 


95 


10.02 


Public, etc. 


1 . 54 


0. 


36 


0.74 


Transportation 


61.13 


14. 


54 


29. 44 


Vacant 


212.84 


50. 


63 


00 


Total 


420.37 


99. 


98 


99.93 



- 25 - 



Thoroughfares and Other Streets 

The Bypass is obviously the predominant thoroughfare -- 
although it did not carry as much traffic in 1962 as a portion 
of South Lafayette Street. The count for the Bypass at a point 
near the overhead bridges was 8,400 while the count for South 
Lafayette Street at a point just north of the bridges was 9,600 
The Bypass carried 7,800 vehicles per day at the eastern city 
limits. Washington Street carried about 6,000 vehicles per day 
in 1962 while Earl Road carried 4,200. Traffic counts are not 
available for South DeKalb Street for 1962 since the street had 
not been widened and added to the State system by then. It is, 
however, relieving much of the load which formerly burdened 
Lafayette Street. 

All but 1.14 miles of the streets in Area 4 are paved. The 
most important unpaved street is Gidney -- which serves the 
rapidly developing southeastern part of Shelby. Gidney Street 
is presently in terrible shape -- due partly to the fact that 
it is not publicly dedicated. Its destiny is to become an 
element of the City's inner loop. There are also some poorly 
laid out streets in the area, e.g., Beam Court. 



Community Facilities 

There are no schools in Area 4, so students have to go some 
distance in any one of three directions to get to their respec- 
tive schools. In addition to a ball diamond situated in Study 
Area 5, Shelby Mills maintains a club house in the western part 
of Study Area 4. The National Guard Armory and the AmVets Club 
also are within the area. Sidewalks are basically adequate 
throughout the area, but a few more street lights are needed. 



Condition of Structures 

There is a high percentage (over 32%) of sub-standard dwell 
ings in the area considering the fact that the area is completel 
white-occupied. In fact, this area embraces some of the poorest 



- 26 - 



quality white housing in Shelby. The structural condition 
commercial and industrial buildings, as shown below by the 
is reasonably good. 



of 

table , 



Standard 



Sub-S tandard 



Total 

Structures 



Con- 
serve 



Minor 
Repa ir 



Ma j or 
Repair 



Dilap- 
idated 



Per Cent 
Sub- 
standard 



le s ide nt ia 1 : 
White 
Non~Wh i te 
] omme r c i a 1 
Indus tr ia 1 
5 ub lie, etc. 

:ota 1 



361 



50 
16 
8_ 

435 



361 




54 



37 

4 

95 



191 



107 



32 . 13 



54 




191 




107 




32.13 
00 



8 
13 
4 

216 



4 



111 



1 

3 


13 



10,00 
18.75 
00 

28.50 



Family Characteristics 

When the number of dwelling units (or families) instead of 
the number of structures is considered it becomes clear that 113 
families (or 30. 627o of the total of 369) occupy sub-standard 
housing. This leaves 256 families in standard housing. There is 
only one duplex in the area, but 15 families live in structures 
having three or more units. 



Factors Contributing to Blight: 

(1) Poorly maintained frame housing in certain areas. 

(2) Dilapidated out-buildings and warehouses along the 
railroad. 

(3) Business uses mixed among residences on South 
Lafayette Street. 

(4) Some extremely narrow streets like Gardner, Live 
Oak and South Morgan. 

(5) The unimproved nature of a portion of Gidney Street. 

(6) Inadequate parking around the National Guard Armory. 

(7) The low incomes of some of the area's residents. 

- 27 - 



Assets of the Area; 



(1) Some nice homes in the central and far eastern 
parts of the area. 

(2) Beautiful shade trees along some streets, e.g., 
Washington and Live Oak. 

(3) Tolerably good street layout and lotting pattern, 
few dead-ends or jogs. 

(4) Basically good quality business and industrial 
de ve 1 opme nt . 

(5) The Shelby Mills club house and the churches. 



Future Development Pattern 

Study Area 4 is expected to accommodate a variety of uses. 
Most of the area lying westward from the railroad tracks will 
eventually be devoted to industry as will the land on the 

north side of Earl Road between DeKalb Street and Hickory Creek. 
Lots fronting on both sides of Lafayette Street and those on the 
north side of the Bypass will surely see additional general 
business development. It is expected that offices and apartment 
houses will displace some of the older houses on Washington and 
DeKalb Streets. The balance of the area is suitable for medium- 
density residential development. 



Recommended Treatment 

The frontage along Lafayette and the frontage along Washing- 
ton and DeKalb Streets as far south as Gidney Street will require 
minor rehabilitation to bring it up to par. The area between 
Gidney Street and the Bypass on Washington and DeKalb Streets 
along with the area served by Live Oak and Morgan Streets -- will 
require major rehabilitation. Strict enforcement of the housing 
code will be necessary. The far eastern part of the study area 
will require only conservation action. See Map 19 for specific 
b oundar ie s . 



- 28 - 



STUDY 



AREA 5 



EXISTING LAND USE & HOUSING CONDITIONS 



S H E L D Y 

North Carolina 




MAP-12 



STUDY AREA 5 



Study Area 5 is bounded by Blanton and Sumter Streets on 
the north, by the Southern Railway tracks, McBrayer and LeGrand 
Streets and a creek on the east, by the Bypass on the south, 
and by Gold and Thompson Streets on the west. The terrain is 
essentially flat although a small creek does run through the 
far western part of the area. 



Land Use Characteristics 

Study Area 5 is only 16. 3 4% vacant, and this vacant land 
is pretty well scattered. The overwhelmingly predominant land 
use is residential with 6 . 3 6 7 C of the developed acreage. Streets 
and railroads occupy 24.37% of the developed acreage. Commercial 
facilities (most of them in the area just west of the CBD or on 
the Bypass) take up 13.3 acres while industrial facilities (mostly 
along the railroad tracks) take up almost 10 acres. There are 
four churches in the area plus the Junior High School. Hence, 
the total acreage devoted to public and semi-public uses (almost 
12) is rather large in comparison to most of the other study 
areas. The following table summarizes the land use picture. 







Per Cent of 


Per Cent of 






Tota 1 


De ve loped 


Land Use : 


Acres 


Area 


Acreage 


Residential 


138.33 


50.50 


60,36 


C omme r c ia 1 


13.30 


4.85 


5.77 


Indus trial 


9.88 


3.60 


4,30 


Pub lie, etc. 


11.75 


4.28 


5,12 


Transportation 


55 . 88 


20. 40 


24.37 


Vacant 


44. 76 


16.34 


00 


Tota 1 


273.90 


99.97 


99.92 



- 29 - 



Thorou ghfares and O ther Streets 

Besides the Bypass (which carried an average of 7,150 
vehicles per day in 1962) the major thoroughfares of the area 
were Marion and Warren Streets. The former carried 4,350 
vehicles per day while the latter carried 4, 050., Other impor- 
tant streets in or bordering Area 4 are Sumter, Graham, Blanton, 
Gardner, Gold, Thompson and Martin. Some of these streets 
(noteably a portion of Thompson along with Martin, Blanton and 
Gardner) are much too narrow for the traffic they carry. Elm 
Street needs to be connected with Gidney Street to provide a 
southern inner loop route. 



The 


mi leag 


e of 


unpaved stree 


ts 


in 


the ar 


ea is 


. 


80, 


Most 


of these 


really 


bad 


streets are i 


n 


the 


area 1 s 


non= 


wh i 


te s 


1 urn , 


There are 


also 


s ome 


dangerous j og 


s 


and 


a few 


de ad~ 


e nd 


s w i 


thin 



the area? 



Community Facilities 

As already mentioned, Shelby's Junior High School is 
located within this study area. It occupies a site containing 
6 , 43 acres; however, a ballpark with about 1,5 acres (which is 
across Sumter Street in Study Area 6) is included in this total 
acreage figure The Junior High really needs to expand some, 
and this can be done most feasibly in an easterly direction. 
The ball diamond belonging to Shelby Mills is the only recrea- 
tion facility in the area 1 which is not school-related, It is 
felt that a neighborhood playground would be most welcome in 
the congested area between Gardner and Elm Streets, Sidewalks 
are not adequate for the area's needs; neither do street lights 
seem ade qua te , 

Condition of Structures 

The following table shows that 13% of the white housing 
and 81% of the non-white housing is sub-standard. It also 
reveals that some commercial and industrial structures leave 



30 - 



much to be desired. Huxley Village is very well maintained 
and has adequate parking whereas the block bounded by Warren, 
Graham, McBrayer and Morgan Streets is extremely unsightly 
and uneconomic. There are also a great number of home occupa- 
tions in the southern part of the study area which tend to 
blight surrounding residences. 



Standard 



Sub-Standard 



Total 

Structures 



C on- 
serve 



Minor 
Re pa ir 



Ma j or 
Repair 



Di lap- 
ida te d 



Per Cent 
Sub- 

s tandard 



Residential : 
White 
Non-Wh i te 
C omme r c ia 1 
Industrial 
Pub lie, etc. 

Tota 1 



580 



53 
16 
17 



159 



512 

68 



159 




28 

2 



299 



16 
12 
15 



286 
13 



101 



60 
41 



21 



21 . 03 



7 
14 



13 .08 
80 . 88 



16.98 
25. 00 
00 



666 



189 



342 



106 



29 



20.27 



Family Characteristics 

It will be noted from the following table that the area has 
a substantial non-white minority. It also has a comparatively 
large number of families living in multi-family units. 







Non- 






White 


White 


Tota 1 


Quality of Residence: 


Fami 1 ie s 


F am i 1 ie s 


Fami 1 ie s 


Standard Housing 


468 


14 


482 


Sub-standard Housing 


70 


68 


138 


Total Dwelling Units 


538 


82 


620 


Per Cent of Families 








Living in Sub-standard 








Hous ing 


13.01 


82.92 


22,25 


Number of Families 








Living in Multi-Family 








Housing : 








Two-family units 


' 24 


30 


54 


Three or more units 


18 





18 


Total 


42 


30 


72 



- 31 - 



Factors Contributing to Blight: 



(1) Sub-standard housing, especially in the Hickory. 
Minden-Jose Streets area, but scattered as well 
through the southern portion of the area. 

(2) Poor layout and lotting in the area between 
Gardner and Elm Streets; some extremely narrow 
and irregular streets. 

(3) Abundance of home occupations, some of them 
inappropriate (e.g., upholstery and appliance 
repair shops, grocery stores). 

(4) The burned out business buildings on Graham 
Street as well as the storage buildings and 
fruit stands in the block between Graham and 
Warren Streets. 

(5) The need for more play space in the southern 
portion of the area; generally low incomes. 



Assets of the Area: 



(1) Generally well-kept homes in the northern part 
of the area with evidence of growing pride of 
home-owners in the southern part of the area. 

(2) Beautiful shade trees along most of the streets. 

(3) The Junior High School and the churches. 

(4) The Huxley Village Shopping Center and the 
business development on the north side of 
Warr en Street. 

(5) Convenient to downtown with its shopping and 
cultural facilities. 



Future Development Pattern 

Most of this study area will continue in medium-density 
residential use, i.e., a mixture of single-family and two- 
family homes with scattered apartment complexes. There will 
surely be additional business activity along Warren Street 
and along the Bypass. Near the railroad tracks and along a 
portion of the Bypass frontage general business development 
is appropriate, whereas Huxley Village and the Warren Street 
office district should remain restrictive. 



- 32 - 



Recommended Treatment 

It is recommended that the core of the block bounded by 
Graham, Gardner, Martin and McBrayer Streets be cleared of 
its dilapidated housing. The standard dwellings on the northern 
fringe of the block should be preserved. Private parties might 
be inclined to do this job along with major rehabilitation 

of the block just south of this one if motivated by strict 

housing code enforcement. The block bounded by Warren, Graham, 
Morgan and McBrayer might also be cleared at this time and 
offered to business developers. The area served by Ligon Street 
would certainly require major rehabilitation. See Map 19 for 
rehabilitation and conservation area boundaries. 



- 33 




STUDY AREA 6 

EXISTING LAND USE 
& 

HOUSING CONDITIONS 
SHELBY 

North Carolina 



MAP-13 



STUDY AREA 6 



Study Area 6 is bounded by the Seaboard Airline and Southern 
Railroad tracks on the north, by Thompson and Gold Streets on the 
east, by Sumter and Blanton Streets and the Bypass on the south, 
and by the city limits on the west. The bulk of the area is 
slightly rolling — except in the far north where a stream has 
cut a fairly deep valley. 

Land Use Characteristics 

Study Area 6 is just over 417 undeveloped, but much of this 
undeveloped land can eventually be utilized for urban purposes. 
The predominant land use is residential with 40.77% of the devel- 
oped area. Public uses, including City Park, City Cemetery, and 
Graham School, occupy almost 150 acres (37.54%) of the developed 
area. Transportation uses take up 20.2% of the developed acreage. 
Commercial and industrial uses take up less than six acres. Most 
of these commercial uses are located in the small business district 
surrounding the intersection of Warren and Gold-Rogers Streets 
some being of the neighborhood type and others of a heavier type. 
The following table summarizes pertinent land use data. 



Land Use : 


Acres 


Per Cent of 
Tota 1 
Area 


Per Cent of 

Developed 

Acreage 


Residential 


161.50 


24.00 


40. 77 


C omme r c ia 1 


5.25 


0.78 


1 .29 


Industrial 


0.44 


0.06 


0,11 


Pub lie, etc. 


148.68 


22 . 10 


37.54 


Transportation 


80. 03 


11.89 


20.20 


Vacant 


276.77 


41 . 14 


00 


Total 


672.67 


99.97 


99.91 



Thoroughfares and Other Streets 

The major thoroughfares lying within Study Area 6 include 
the Bypass, Marion and Warren Streets. That portion of the 
Bypass which borders Area 6 carried between 5,100 and 5,250 



- 34 - 



vehicles per day in 1962. However, it carried 7,680 at the 
western city limits. Marion Street carried 4,350 vehicles 
per day and Warren Street 4,050. Other important streets are 
Sumter, Blanton, Thompson and Gold. The implementation of 
the Major Thoroughfare Plan will see Sumter Street extended 
to the Bypass and Ware Street extended northward to Lee Street 
at the point where Hendrick Road intersects Lee. 

Most of the streets in the area have adequate rights-of- 
way and are suitably paved. However, Bowman and Mintz Streets 
are definitely sub-standard and Clinton Street between Sumter 
and Marion badly needs paving. The mileage of unpaved streets 
in the area is 1.02, but this total counts the road around the 
ball diamond and one of the cemetery accessways. 

Community Facilities 

The Graham and Oak Schools are located in this area. Graham 
School is relatively new and has a very spacious site, whereas 
Oak School is old and occupies a very restrictive site. Graham 
School serves all of Areas 5 and 6 plus Area 11 across the By- 
pass. Oak School houses all of the white sixth grade classes. 
The VFW Club is also located within the area. City Park with its 
gymnasium, swimming pool, ball diamonds, miniature railroad and 
8-hole golf course is another convenience. Sidewalks are pro- 
vided only in the older areas. 



Condition of Structures 

The table below indicates that less than 1% of the housing 
in the area is sub-standard. This is obviously one of the nicer 
parts of town. Non-residential structures are not, however, in 
uniformly good shape. 



- 35 - 



Standard Sub-Standard Per Cent 



Total Con- Minor Major Dilap- Sub- 
Structures serve Repair Repair idated standard 



esidential: 430 335 91 3 1 0.93 

White 430 335 91 3 1 0.93 

Non-White 00 

ommercial 26 16 6 3 1 15.38 

ndustrial 7 5 2 28.57 

ublic, etc. 10 5 3 2 20.00 

otal 473 356 105 10 2 2.53 



Family Characteristics 

Since there are no non-whites living within the study area 
it will not be necessary to use the tabular format to discuss 
family characteristics. Only four families (or 0.89 7c of the 
total of 449 families) occupy sub-standard housing. This leaves 
445 families in standard housing. There are two duplexes in the 
study area. Furthermore, 19 families live in structures having 
three or more units. 

Factors Contributing to Blight : 

(1) The semi- indus tr ia 1 uses fronting Rogers and Marion 
Streets as well as the area's two used car lots. 

(2) Some sub-standard streets and a partial dearth of 
s idewa Iks . 

Assets of the Area : 

(1) The superior quality of almost all of the housing 
in the area . 

(2) The presence of shade trees along most of the streets. 

(3) The presence of City Park and Graham School within 
the area . 

(4) The neighborhood shopping center at the corner of 
Warren and Gold-Rogers Streets. 



- 36 - 



Future Development Pattern 

The bulk of Study Area 6 should be restricted to s i ng 1 e - f am i 1 y 
and two-family residences; however, an area has been set aside for 
apartment complexes near the entrance to City Park. The neighbor- 
hood shopping district at the intersection of Warren Street and 
Gold-Rogers is a convenience to residents of the study area and 
should remain. Every effort should be made to safeguard the land 
on the north side of the Bypass from commercial invasion. 

Recommended Treatment 

There are a few pockets of minor repair housing (see Map 18), 
such as the area just west of Gold Street and south of Warren 
Street, plus Bowman Street and Charles Road, However, the balance 
of the area can be considered a conservation area. Garden club 
ingenuity can usually keep this type of area neat. 



- 37 - 



STUDY AREA 7 



Study Area 7 is bounded by the city limits on the north and 
west, by property lines, First Street and the alley just east of 
DeKalb Street on the east, and by Hudson Street and the Seaboard 
Airline and Southern Railroad tracks on the south. Except for 
the far eastern portion of the area, the terrain is quite rugged. 
This ruggedness has precluded development in the past and will 
certainly dictate the type and density of development which does 
eventually materialize. 



Land Use Characteristics 

Some 70,57% of the Study Area 7 is vacant. The primary land 
use is residential with 34.33% of the developed acreage. However, 
streets and railroads take up almost as much land — 32.44% of the 
developed acreage. The City Water Works and Dump, which were 
classified as industrial land uses, occupy large sites. There are 
some other heavy industries along Lee Street and a new Drexel 
plant on Best Street. Commercial uses occupy only six acres. Pub- 
lic uses, such as the hospital, schools, clubs and churches occupy 
almost 31 acres. In fact, the hospital gives the area a unique 
function and opportunity. The following table summarizes pertinent 
land use data . 



Per Cent of Per Cent of 

Total Developed 



Land Use : 


Acres 


Area 




Acre age 


Residential 


74.12 


10. 


11 


34.33 


C omme r c ia 1 


6 . 12 


0. 


83 


2 . 83 


Indus tr ia 1 


34.73 


4. 


73 


16 . 09 


Pub lie, etc. 


30.78 


4, 


19 


14.26 


Transportation 


70.01 


9. 


54 


32.44 


Vacant 


517.37 


70. 


57 


00 


Tota 1 


733 . 13 


99. 


97 


99.95 



- 38 - 



Thoroughfares and Other Streets 



Lafayette Street, Metcalf Road, Grover and Lee Streets are 
the area's major thoroughfares. Lafayette Street carried between 
1,750 and 7,100 vehicles per day in 1962 (these extremes repre- 
senting northern and southern count stations). Metcalf Road 
attracted between 800-900 vehicles per day, Grover Street 4,950, 
and Lee Street 2,500. One of the most congested areas in Shelby 
is that between Lee and Grover Streets on Lafayette. A smoother 
connection between Grover and Lee Streets is imperative. This 
is a high priority major thoroughfare proposal. Another impor- 
tant street is Washington. 

Some 1.14 miles of streets are unpaved, although some of 
these so-called streets are little better than alleys. For 
example, the alleys serving the Jamestown slum are in deplorable 
shape. Hendricks Road is presently unpaved and almost unused, 
but it has potential as an element of the Major Thoroughfare Plan. 

Community Facilities 

Washington School is situated in the mid-northern part of 
the area. It is rather old and occupies a very cramped site. It 
is also badly located insofar as traffic is concerned, so it will 
probably have to be relocated some day. The Northlake Club, a 
private swimming and dining club, lies within the area, but it 
serves no neighborhood function. The Cleveland Memorial Hospital 
is both an asset and a liability to the area. It is an asset 
because of its attractive grounds and a liability because of the 
traffic it generates. Sidewalks are basically adequate within 
the area, except that students from the new Crestmont Heights 
Subdivision will have to walk to Washington School along some 
fairly busy highways. More street lights are needed. 



- 39 - 



Condition of Structures 

The table below reveals that almost 25% of the residences in 
the area merit a sub-standard classification. Fully 100% of the 
non-white housing is sub-standard. This applies not only to 
Jamestown but to the pocket of non-white homes on Steeple Street. 
Businesses in the area seem, for the most part, well maintained, 
but some of the industrial structures found in the area seem to be 
de ter iora t ing . 



)ta 1 



Tota 1 

Structures 



;s identia 1 : 


309 


White 




Non-Wh i te 




jmme r c ia 1 


14 


ldus tr ia 1 


12 


lblic, etc. 


8 



343 



257 
52 



Standard 



Sub-S tandard 



Con- 
serve 



Minor 
Repair 



Ma j or 
Re pa ir 



Dilap- 
idated 



54 



54 




70 



179 



179 




190 



40 



15 
25 



44 



36 



9 
27 



39 



Per Cent 
Sub- 

standard 



24.59 



9,33 
100.00 



14.28 
41 .66 

00 



24.19 



Family Characteristics 

The following table indicates that all of the 52 non-white 
families in the area live in single-family housing. Some 29 
white families live in multi-family housing. 



Quality of Residence 



Whi te 
Fami lies 



Non- 
Wh i te 
Fami lies 



Total 
Families 



Standard Housing 


257 





257 


Sub-standard Housing 


20 


52 


72 


Total Dwelling Units 


277 


52 


329 


Per Cent of Families 








Living in Sub-standard 








Hous ing 


7 .22 


100. 00 


21.88 


Number of Families 








Living in Multi-Family 








Housing: 








Two-family units 


4 





4 


Three or more units 


25 





25 


Total 


29 





29 



- 40 - 



Factors Contributing to Blight : 

(1) The presence of so many slum dwellings and their 
associated out-buildings 

(2) Poor maintenance of many large, old homes (including 
a trend toward home occupations). 

(3) Some traffic bottlenecks; the railroad frontage. 

(4) The overall inadequacy of Washington School. 

Assets of the Area : 

(1) Some nice homes along tree-shaded streets having 
s idewa 1 ks . 

(2) Basically good street layout and lotting pattern. 

(3) Appropriate medical office development around the 
hospital . 

(4) Convenient to shopping facilities. 

Future Development Pattern 

S i ng 1 e - f ami ly and two-family residential dwellings will 
surely occupy most of the buildable area as it comes into use. 
The lowest densities will probably be found in the northwestern 
corner of the study area. The area surrounding the hospital is 
developing into a Re s ide n t ia 1-0 f f ice- ty pe district. Industry 
will continue to be found along the railroad tracks and around the 
Drexe 1 plant • 

Recommended Treatment 

Most of this area will require minor rehabilitation treat- 
ment backed by strict housing code enforcement. The exceptions 
are the area north of the creek which is developing from scratch 
(a conservation area), plus the block bounded by Morgan, Lafayette, 
the alley by Cornwall Drug and Steeple Street (a major rehabili- 
tation area). The connection of Grover and Lee Streets will clear 
out Jamestown* See Map 19 for details. 



- 41 - 



STUDY AREA 8 



Study Area 8 is bounded by the city limits on the north and 
east, by Marion Street on the south, and by Lineberger and Grover 
Streets and property lines on the west. There are several small 
creek valleys in the area which cause the area to be quite rolling. 



Land Use Characteristics 

Some 58.48% of the total acreage in Study Area 8 is devoid 
of urban development. The predominant land use is residential 
with 51.75% of the developed acreage. Streets and railroads take 
up 29.15% of the developed acreage and industrial uses occupy 13.17% 
The largest factories are Hudson Hosiery, Ester Mill and Bost Bakery 
Commercial and institutional uses are located mostly on Lineberger 
and Buffalo Streets, respectively. The following table summarizes 
pertinent land use data. 







Per C 


ent of 


Per Cent of 






Total 




Developed 


Land Use: 


Acres 


Area 




Acreage 


Residential 


113.63 


21 . 


48 


51.75 


C ommer c ia 1 


6.72 


1 . 


27 


3 . 04 


Indus tr ia 1 


28.94 


5 . 


47 


13.17 


Public, etc. 


6 .24 


1 . 


17 


2 . 84 


Transportation 


64.02 


12 . 


10 


29.15 


Vacant 


309.33 


58. 


43 


00 


Tota 1 


528. 88 


99. 


97 


99,95 



Thoroughfares and Other Streets 

Marion, Grover and Frederick Streets are the area's major 
thoroughfares. Marion Street carried 8,900 vehicles per day in 
1962 (Shelby's busiest street), Grover carried 5,800 and Frederick 
Street 1,280. Other important streets are Lineberger, Buffalo and 
Dover. None of the internal streets has a divisive effect. The 
achievement of the aims of the Major Thoroughfare Plan will see 
Grover Street extended eastward to intersect S. R. 1926 and 



- 42 - 



Fallston Road extended southward to meet Poston Street at a point 
south of the railroad tracks. 

There are 1.36 miles of unpaved streets in the area with some 
of them being sub-standard in width as well as paving. Most of 
the unpaved streets serve pockets of poverty. The overall street 
layout is quite good. 



Community Facilities 

Jefferson School is the only educational facility situated 
within the area. It has a very small site. A new non-white 
elementary school is going to be built in the northern part of 
the area. This elementary school will serve the new public hous- 
ing project and its immediate vicinity. Besides the limited play- 
grounds at Jefferson School there is a playground at the corner of 
Buffalo Street and Edgemont Avenue plus a ball park which occupies 
an odd-shaped block near Ester Mill. Sidewalks are provided only 
in the older areas. 



Condition of Structures 

It is interesting to note from the table below that the per- 
centage of white and non-white housing which is sub-standard is 
almost identical (almost 16%). Clearly, this area includes the 
best quality non-white neighborhood in Shelby. Industrial build- 
ings are just over 15% sub-standard, but commercial buildings are 
in tolerably good condition. 



Standard Sub-Standard Per Cent 



Total Con- Minor Major Dilap- Sub- 

Structures serve Repair Repair ida te d s ta ndard 

asidential: 547 115 345 77 10 15.90 

White 460 104 283 66 7 15.86 

Non-White 87 11 62 11 3 16.09 

ammercial 18 5 11 2 11.11 

idustrial 26 14 8 4 15.38 

iblic, etc. 5 3 2 00 

atal 596 137 366 83 10 15.60 



- 43 - 



Family Characteristics 

This area has more non-white families than Area 7, but they 
live much better. There are few duplexes and no apartment houses 
in the area. The following table provides more details. 



Non- 
White White Total 
Quality of Residence: Families Families Fami lies 



Standard Housing 


390 


73 


463 


Sub-standard Housing 


72 


14 


86 


Total Dwelling Units 


462 


87 


549 


Per Cent of Families 








Living in Sub-standard 








Housing 


15.58 


16.09 


15.66 


Number of Families 








Living in Multi-Family 








Housing: 








Two-family units 


8 





8 


Three or more units 











Total 


8 





8 



Factors Contributing to Blight : 

(1) The scattered pockets of sub-standard homes, especially 
in proximity to the railroad tracks; some dumping of 
trash. 

(2) Lack of proper buffering between residential and non- 
residential uses. 

(3) Some strip commercial development along Grover Street. 

(4) Lack of a through connection between Fallston Road and 
Post on Street. 



Assets of the Area : 

(1) Generally good quality of housing along most streets. 

(2) Shade trees have been provided along most streets. 

(3) Generally good street pattern and adequate lotting. 

(4) Existing and prospective schools and playgrounds. 



- 44 - 



Future Development Pattern 

It is expected that the bulk of Study Area 8 will remain a 
good quality residential area. One tract in the northern part 
will be used as the site of a public housing project. There are 
some small neighborhood business districts within the study area 
— plus a few light industrial districts. These should not be 
of fens ive . 



Recommended Treatment 

It is recommended that the majority of this area be given 
minor rehabilitation treatment. Nevertheless, the new develop- 
ment in the northeastern sector is clearly a conservation area, 
and there are several small pockets requiring major rehabilita- 
tion or outright clearance. The areas denoted in brown on Map 19 
can surely be selectively cleared by private action and private 
financing. Even the largest pockets of blight, those on Bonny 
and Gum Streets, will probably involve more rehabilitation than 
clearance . 



- 45 - 




STUDY AREA 9 



EXISTING LAND USE 
& 

HOUSING CONDITIONS 



SHELBY 

North Carolina 




MAP-16 



STUDY AREA 9 



Study Area 9 is bounded by Marion Street on the north, by the 
city limits on the east and south, and by Chestnut and Graham 
Streets, a property line and a creek, Kings and McGowan Roads and 
another creek on the west. The area, because of its many creeks, 
is quite hilly. 

Land Use Characteristics 

Over half (52 . 6 87 ) of the total acreage is devoid of urban 
development. Much of this vacant land has a high potential for 
residential development. As in the case of every other study area, 
the predominant land use is residential, but in this case the per- 
centage is a high 71.8. There are very few home occupations in Area 
9. Streets take up 20.84% of the developed acreage. Commercial 
and industrial uses, mostly along Marion Street, occupy less than 
14 acres. Most of the commercial uses are automotive and two of 
the industrial uses are junk yards. Public uses, mainly Marion 
School, occupy just over seven acres. The following table summar- 
izes land use statistics. 



Land Use : 


Acres 


Per Cent of 
Tota 1 
Ar e a 


Per Cent of 
De ve 1 ope d 
Acreage 


Residential 


207.17 


33.97 


7 1 . 80 


C ommer c ia 1 


9.69 


1.58 


3.34 


Indus trial 


4.22 


0.69 


1 . 46 


Public, etc. 


7 .27 


1.19 


2 . 52 


Tr ans por ta t i on 


60.14 


9.86 


20.84 


Vacant 


321.23 


52.68 


00 


Total 


609.72 


99.97 


99 . 96 



Thoroughfares and Other Streets 

Marion Street and Kings Road are the only streets for which 
traffic counts are available. Marion Street carried an average 
of 7,400 vehicles per day in 1962 while Kings Road carried 1,070 
(both counts being taken at the eastern city limits). Other 



- 46 - 



important streets are Forest Hill Road, Peach and Poston Streets 
and McGowan Road» The implementation of the Major Thoroughfare 
Plan will see Meadowbrook Lane extended eastward to Country Club 
Road (S. R. 2052). It may also see Poston Street extended so as 
to connect with Windsor Drive, cross Kings Road, and eventually 
tie in with Gidney Street. 

There are 1.25 miles of unpaved streets in Study Area 9, 
but some of these are merely platted streets which have not been 
developed with homes along them. Traffic circulation within the 
area is basically good — especially now that Montrose Drive is 
being extended over Hickory Creek. 



Community Facilities 

As already mentioned, Marion School is located within Study 
Area 9. This fairly new and well-appointed facility is a decided 
asset to the area. The site is a bit small (7 acres) but there 
is room for expansion. A park or playground will be needed in 
the southern part of the study area whenever the area focussed on 
Gidney and McGowan Streets becomes more fully built up — espe- 
cially if the East Main Street Subdivision is annexed to the City. 
This recreation facility can perhaps be located around the small 
lake in the southern part of the study area. Sidewalks are not 
typical of this study area and, because of its large lot pattern, 
they are not considered feasible except perhaps in the immediate 
vicinity of Marion School. 



Condition of Structures 

Less than 4% of the housing 
sub-standard, and almost all of 
the northeastern corner of the a 
structures, according to the tab 



in Study Area 9 is considered 
this bad housing is located in 
rea. Commercial and industrial 
le below, are much worse. 



- 47 - 







S tandar d 


Sub- 


i.J L. CI 1 1 U CI J- \J 


Pp r Cent 




Total 


Con- 


Minor 


Ma j o r 


D i 1 a p- 


Sub- 




Strurtiire'; 


s e r ve 


Re p a i r 


Ro na i T 

1 \ C Q ^- i 


i A a i"p H 




esidential : 


441 


303 


121 


17 





3 . 85 


Whi te 


441 


303 


121 


17 





3 . 85 


Kf nn-Wh i t~p 

IN U 11 W 11 A. U-C 











o 


o 


00 


omme rcial 


9 


2 


4 


3 





33.33 


ndus trial 


Q 
O 





6 


Z 


u 


<i J • uu 


ub lie, etc. 


3 


2 


1 








00 


ota 1 


461 


307 


132 


22 





4.77 



Family Characteristics 

There are no non-white families living within Study Area 9. 
However, there are 16 white families who live in sub-standard 
housing. They constitute 3.38% of the total of 472 families 
living within the area. This means that 456 families enjoy 
standard housing. There are three duplexes and 34 families occupy 
structures having three or more units. Most of this multi-family 
housing lies along Marion Street. 



Factors Contributing to Blight : 

(1) The sub-standard housing and business structures and 
junk yards in the northeastern corner of the area. 

(2) The isolation of parts of the area because of overly 
narrow streets — making access difficult for fire 
engines and other service vehicles. 

Assets of the Area : 

(1) The superior quality housing which prevails in the 
area. 

(2) The lovely shade trees along the streets in the 
northern half of the study area. 

(3) Some attractive commercial and industrial uses along 
Marion Street. 

(4) The presence of Marion School as a neighborhood 
center . 



- 48 - 



Future Development Pattern 

The bulk of Study Area 9 is zoned R-10, i.e., for exclusively 
single-family residential use. There is, however, a strip of 
Residential-Office zoning along Marion Street to the west and a 
strip of General Business zoning to the east. No interior shop- 
ping centers are needed or tolerable. 



Recommended Treatment 

Conservation is the recommen 
ing majority of the area. The on 
corner (between Hickory Creek and 
major rehabilitation and "spot" c 



ded treatment for the overwhelm- 
ly exception is the northeastern 

Peach Street) which will require 
learance. (See Map 19.) 



- 49 - 



STUDY AREA 



10 




STUDY AREA 10 



Study Area 10 is bounded by the Bypass on the north, by the 
city limits on the east and south, and by a property line and a 
creek on the west. Hickory Creek runs through the area — making 
it somewhat irregular in its eastern reaches. 

Land Use Characteristics 

Almost one-half (41.12%) of the total acreage is vacant or 
unused. Much of this land is floodable and will never be suit- 
able for intensive development. Residential use is the primary 
use — with 38.75% of the developed acreage. Public uses, mainly 
Shelby Senior High School, take up another 29.42% of the developed 
area. Transportation uses occupy 25.46% of the developed acreage. 
Commercial uses occupy 7.5 acres while industrial uses (mostly 
textile mills) take up 10 acres. Some of the commercial uses on 
the Bypass are tourist-oriented whereas those on Lafayette Street 
are neighborhood-oriented. The following table summarizes the 
land use picture. 



Land Use: 


Acres 


Per Cent of 
Tota 1 
Area 


Per Cent of 
De ve 1 ope d 
Acreage 


Residential 


106.64 


20.10 


38.75 


C ommer c ia 1 


7 . 49 


1.41 


2.69 


Indus trial 


9.99 


1 . 88 


3.62 


Pub lie, etc. 


80.95 


15.26 


29.42 


Transportation 


70.08 


13.21 


25.46 


Vacant 


255.27 


48.12 


00 


Total 


530. 42 


99.98 


99 . 94 



Thoroughfares and Other Streets 

The major thoroughfares which traverse the neighborhood are 
the Bypass, Earl Road (N. C. 26) and Lafayette Street (N. C. 18). 
The Bypass carried between 7,800 and 8,400 vehicles per day in 
1962, Earl Road carried between 3,350 and 3,480, and Lafayette 



- 50 - 



Street carried between 5,450 and 8,100 (the count stations being 
at the southern city limits and just south of the Bypass, respec- 
tively). Broad and Morgan Streets are also important. The High 
School is one of the main traffic generators in Shelby, so DeKalb 
Street has recently been widened to serve the school's needs. 
DeKalb Street will eventually tie into a southern loop route. 

The street pattern of the area is pretty badly interrupted 
by the railroad tracks. For example, Shannonhouse Street, the 
likely connector, is unpaved in this particular area. Another 
street which needs improvement is Bridges Street. There are 
presently 1.36 miles of unpaved streets in Study Area 10. More 
off-street parking is needed by the businesses along Lafayette 
S tree t . 



Community Facilities 

Shelby Senior High School occupies a spacious site within 
Study Area 10. There is a stadium and adequate parking space. 
The Morgan Elementary School is also located within the area. 
This elementary school could serve as the focus for a rather 
nice neighborhood although it presently needs remodelling. 
Holly Oak Park, the City's non-white recreation facility, is 
located in the far eastern part of the area. However, it is 
more of a community or even a regional park than a neighborhood 
park. Sidewalks are scarce in the study area. There could be 
some improvement in street lighting. 



Condition of Structures 

Fully 3 0% of the housing in Study Area 10 is sub-standard. 
This figure reflects the age of the area as well as its mainten- 
ance. The following table reveals that 28% of the commercial 
structures and 60% of the industrial structures are sub-standard. 
These unsightly non-residential uses have a blighting effect 
on private homes. 



- 51 - 







S tandard 


Sub-S tandard 


Per Cent 




Total 


C, nn — 


Mi rt nr 

11 1 11 U 1 


Ma 1 AT 


[)i 1 a n- 


Sub- 




Structures 


c p r irp 
& C 1. V c 




Rfi n a 1 T 

IX \J d -1. J- 


i Ha 1~ p H 
<L u a u c u 


standard 






41 


244 


120 


3 




w n 1 1 e 


J 7 J 


39 


235 


1 1 8 


3 


jU.Oj 


in ou-w n i c e 


J. J 


2 


9 


2 





IS ^ R 
1 J • j o 


C omme r c ia 1 


29 


13 


8 


5 


3 


27.58 


Industrial 


5 





2 


3 





6 0.00 


Public, etc. 


14 


7 


6 


1 





7.14 


Total 


456 


61 


260 


129 


6 


29.60 



Family Characteristics 

Although 14 non-white families live in Study Area 10 they 
occupy comparatively decent housing. The table below indicates 
that the area has a few duplexes. 







Non- 






White 


White 


Total 


Quality of Housing: 


Fami 1 ie s 


Fami lies 


Fami lies 


Standard Housing 


277 


12 


289 


Sub-standard Housing 


121 


2 


123 


Total Dwelling Units 


398 


14 


412 


Per Cent of Families 








Living in Sub-standard 








Housing 


30. 40 


14.28 


29 . 85 


Number of Families 








Living in Multi-Family 








Hous ing : 








Two-family units 


6 


2 


8 


Three or more units 











Tota 1 


6 


2 


8 



- 52 - 



Factors Contributing to Blight : 

(1) The quantity of rundown housing in the western part 
of the area, reflecting a low income level. 

(2) The relatively inefficient street and block pattern. 

(3) Dilapidated out-buildings, including chicken coops. 

(4) The condition of Morgan School and its playgrounds. 

(5) Improper buffering between residential and other uses; 
the railroad . 

(6) Abandoned commercial uses along Lafayette Street. 



Assets of the Area : 

(1) Some nice homes, especially along Lafayette and 
Morton Streets. 

(2) A nice church and the potential for an expanded 
Morgan School. 

(3) Shade trees throughout most of the area. 

(4) Convenient neighborhood shopping center. 



Future Development Pattern 

This area should remain, for the most part, a medium- 
density residential area. It is not expected that many apartment 
houses will ever be built in South Shelby. The neighborhood 
shopping district on South Lafayette and the general business 
area fronting the Bypass will probably expand some. The two 
old mills in the area will probably not expand much. 



Recommended Treatment 

Most of this area must be consigned to a major rehabili- 
tation classification. There will even be some "spot" clearance 
needed in the older sections. The only sizeable areas which 
might warrant a minor rehabilitation treatment are a portion of 
the Lafayette Street frontage and the Holly Oak Park area. (See 
Map 19.) 



- 53 - 




STUDY AREA 11 



EXISTING LAND USE 
& 

HOUSING CONDITIONS 



SHELBY 

North Carolina 




MAP-18 



STUDY AREA 11 



Study Area 11 is bounded by the Bypass on the north, by a 
creek and property line on the east, and by the city limits on 
the south and west-, The area has a few creeks and is therefore 
gently roll ing , 

Land Use Characteristics 

About 40% of Study Area 11 lies vacant although some of 
this vacant land has been subdivided* Fully 70.52% of the 
developed acreage is devoted to residential use. Another 25.29% 
is devoted to streets. Only two acres (including Governor's Inn 
and the radio station) are occupied by businesses and there is no 
industry in the area. Two churches and the Optimist Ballpark 
are the only public uses in the area. The following table summar- 
izes land use statistics. 



Per Cent of Per Cent of 
Total Deve loped 

Land Use : Acres Area Acreage 



Res identia 1 


142 


.07 


42. 


68 


70. 


52 


C ommer c ia 1 


2 


. 06 


0. 


61 


1 . 


02 


Industrial 




00 




00 




00 


Public, etc. 


6 


.35 


1 . 


90 


3 . 


15 


Transportation 


50 


.96 


15. 


31 


25. 


29 


Vacant 


131 


.37 


39. 


47 




00 


Tota 1 


332 


.81 


99 . 


97 


99. 


98 



Thoroughfares and Other Streets 

The Bypass and Charles and Wesson Roads are the only major 
thoroughfares which serve the area. The Bypass carried between 
5,100 and 5,200 vehicles per day in 1962, Charles Road carried 
between 850 and 1,250 (the difference reflecting southern and 
northern count stations) and* Wesson Road carried 900, The Land 
Development Plan proposes a link between Lowery and Mark Streets 



- 54 - 



as well as an extension of Hampton Street southward to Dellinger 
Road . 

There is less than one mile (0.80 miles to be exact) of un- 
paved streets in the area. The most important one of these unpaved 
streets is Lackey Extension. 

Community Facilities 

There is no school in this area. Students from this neigh- 
borhood must cross the Bypass in order to get to Graham School. 
An overhead pedestrian crossing has been built to make this cross- 
ing safer. The afore-mentioned Optimist Ballpark serves a defi- 
nite need, but it will have to be relocated, at least partially, 
whenever the Lowery and Mark Streets link is put through. There 
are few sidewalks in this area because of its newness and the 
prevailing lot sizes. 

Condition of Structures 

The following table shows that the housing and even the 
business buildings in this neighborhood are uniformly good. 



S tandar d 



Sub-S tandar d 



Residential : 
Wh i te 
Non-Wh i te 
C omme r c ia 1 
Industrial 
Pub 1 ic , etc. 



Total 

S tr uc ture s 



341 



341 




Con- 
serve 



Minor 
Re pa ir 



Ma j or 
Repa ir 



Dilap- 
idated 



306 



306 




33 



33 




1 



1 



Per Cent 
Sub- 

s tandard 



0.29 



00 
00 
00 



0.29 

00 



Tota 1 



351 



311 



38 



0. 56 



Family Characteristics 

The gist of the table which would ordinarily fit here is that 
there are only two families (both white) who live in sub-standard 



- 55 - 



housing. The area has no multi-family units not even duplexes 



Factors Contributing to Blight : 

(1) The lack of shade trees in some areas, and some dirt 
streets . 

(2) The danger of continued commercial invasion along the 
Bypass — avoidable only by strict observance of the 
present zoning scheme. 



Assets of the Area : 

(1) The superior quality of the housing found in this area 

(2) The basically good street pattern and lotting 
ar rangeme nt . 

(3) The two churches and the Optimist Ballpark, 

(4) The absence of home occupations and other mixed uses. 



Future Development Pattern 

Almost all of the study area is zoned R-8, i.e., medium- 
density residential with limited community uses. There are, 
however, two places where H-B Highway Business zoning was 
applied. These H-B zones will serve the needs of the travelling 
public in a way that will not be detrimental to nearby homes. 



Recommended Treatment 

Conservation^ obviously. 



- 56 - 



SHELBY 



Recommended Treatment Areas 



North Carolina 




LEGEND 

CONSERVATION 
MINOR REHABILITATION 
MAJOR REHABILITATION 
PARTIAL CLEARANCE 
PUBLIC HOUSING SITES 
COMMERCIAL INVASION 



MAP -19 



I 



CHAPTER III 



CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

This final chapter of the Neighborhood Analysis will deal 
primarily with the problem of implementation — of getting 
something done about the housing and environmental problems 
which beset the city. Chapters I and II have pointed out that 
Shelby does indeed have several pockets of blight -- in spite 
of the fact that the city's overall image is one of well- 
maintained beauty. What can be done about these pockets of 
blight? How can they be eliminated or at least rehabilitated? 
What policies should public officials and private individuals 
follow in connection with slum clearance? What techniques 
have proven effective in other cities to bring about rehabili- 
tation action? An attempt will be made in this chapter to 
answer these and other crucial questions pertaining to the 
actual working out of a comprehensive neighborhood improvement 
pr ogr am . 

Policy Considerations 

The general principle which should apply to all efforts 
aimed at improving Shelby's environmental conditions is this: 
self control is the best control. All that can possibly be 
achieved by voluntary private action should be achieved that 
way. Enlightened self interest and personal pride are two of 
the most powerful motivators known to man. Respect for other 
peoples' property and a concern for other peoples' welfare can 
also become powerful motivators when properly inculcated. If 
this combination of selfish and unselfish motives can be har- 
nessed in the interest of neighborhood conservation there is 
no limit to what can be accomplished. Most people will do 
certain things voluntarily which they could not be paid or 
forced to do. Public service, whether in churches, clubs or 
on governmental boards is an example of this phenomenon. If 



- 57 - 



private action, either individually or collectively, can erase 
the areas of blight and near-blight which exist around Shelby 
so much the better 9 

Only where private motivations, capabilities and capital 
are inadequate to do the job should public bodies pitch in, 
This is not to say that public bodies should not assist private 
individuals or groups in their be au t i f i ca t i on and/or spot clear- 
ance projects o They should certainly encourage private action 
by furnishing capital improvements or better services to the 
areas undergoing rehabilitation or even redevelopment, This will 
usually involve some capital outlay by the City which cannot be 
recouped by special assessments or utility charges. This outlay 
will, however 2 be a worthwhile investment since the replacement 
of blighted areas by standard homes or, in some cases, commer- 
cial development will be reflected in the tax rolls, In some 
cases the difference in the taxable value of property before 
and after clearance and redevelopment has been as much as 10 
to 1 » 

The other side of the coin might have this superscription: 
Whatever private parties are unable or unwilling to do should be 
handled by governmental iniative, This rule of thumb assumes 
that the project in question has been established as of proven 
need and doubtless value. There are, of course, two methods by 
which governmental iniative can make itself felt: (1) regulatory 
ordinances and (2) outright construction. Regulatory ordinances 
include nuisance abatement ordinances (such as rules concerning 
garbage cans), zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, build- 
ing codes (including plumbing, heating and electrical codes), 
and minimum housing codes« Shelby has all of these police power 
statutes in force and they are contributing mightily to the pre- 
vention of land misuse and structural problems ■> The only one of 
the fore name d types of ordinances which has any retroactive effec 
is the minimum housing code. More will be said about it later. 



- 58 - 



SHELBY 



Recommended Treatment Areas 



North Carolina 




LEGEND 

CONSERVATION 
MINOR REHABILITATION 
MAJOR REHABILITATION 
PARTIAL CLEARANCE 
PUBLIC HOUSING SITES 
COMMERCIAL INVASION 



MAP -19 



When a municipality engages in outright construction to 
alleviate a problem it must necessarily have acquired land for 
a given facility, either by gift, purchase or by eminent domain. 
It may have to demolish the sub-standard structures which are 
already on the land before it can proceed with construction. 
This method is the one ordinarily utilized when a municipality 
builds public housing. Since Shelby is in the process of getting 
public housing the relationship of this important asset to the 
general betterment picture will be treated in some detail in the 
following subsection. In summary, the City has a vital and 
legitimate role to play in residential upgrading. 

Techniques for Treatment 

This topic can be broken down into its two main components: 
(1) Conservation and Rehabilitation Areas and (2) Potential 
Clearance and Redevelopment Projects. Action programs and 
organizational methods will be given for each. Map 19 delin- 
eates these areas. 



Conservation and Rehabilitation Areas . Conservation and 
rehabilitation areas are treated together since their 
degree of blight is very different from that of the 
potential clearance and redevelopment projects. It is 
felt that the best vehicle through which to attack the 
relatively minor environmental problems of Shelby's 
standard neighborhoods is the garden club. Garden clubs 
have transformed eye-sores and semi-desolate areas into 
places of beauty in scores of cities across the nation. 
Many of these projects have been aided by cash grants 
(or what might be called "seed money") from the Sears 
Roebuck Foundation in connection with its Home and 
Neighborhood Development Sponsors Program. The energy 
and civic consciousness of garden club women is pro- 
verbial. Instead of sitting around complaining about 
unsightly or unhealthy conditions these women don their 
overalls and grab their shovels or paint brushes and go 
to work. Typical garden club projects have been: 

To plant or encourage the planting of flowers and shrubs 
along railroads and at service stations. 

To landscape the grounds of hospitals, schools and other 
public buildings. 



- 59 - 



To give direction to school children with regard to 
landscaping their own school grounds or home yards. 

To sponsor contests for the cleanest school grounds. 

To sponsor contests for the loveliest yard in a 
ne ighborhood . 

To sponsor city-wide anti-litter campaigns, encourage 
the use of trashcans, litterbags in cars, etc. 

To serve as clearing-house of information on paint-up, 
fix-up suggestions and financing. 

To encourage the demolition of ramshackle out-buildings. 

To discourage the dumping of rubbish in creeks and 
over embankments. 

To clean up vacant lots and create playfields there. 

To direct youth groups in litter-collecting endeavors. 

To encourage the city in a street tree planting program. 

To support city officials in their strict enforcement 
of the zoning ordinance, minimum housing code and other 
police power statutes. 

To help the Health Department spot and eradicate 
mosquito- and rat-breeding places. 

To publicize good and bad examples of environmental 
upkee p . 

To beautify the city's highway approaches and plug for 
junk yard screening. 

To emphasize the economic as well as the social value 
of be au t i f i ca t i on . 

And many others . . . 

But women are not the only ones who can participate in 
garden club activities. Men's, children's and teens' 
garden clubs could also be organized. Moreover, it is 
the recommendation of this report that some sort of 
overall direction be given to the garden clubs of Shelby. 
If there is no federated garden club then one should be 
organized. The most effective way for the garden clubs 
of Shelby to make their influence felt would be for them 
to be organized on a neighborhood or zone basis. This 
way, the entire city could be divided into logical zones 



- 60 - 



of a size that would lend themselves to intra- 
neighborhood cooperation. A map showing environmental 
problems could be prepared so that the persons most 
directly affected by the condition of their neighbors' 
building and grounds (commercial as well as residential) 
could work out their mutual problems on a friendly basis. 
Map 20 shows a tentative arrangement of suggested garden 
club areas. These boundaries are only suggestive and 
may well be deviated from. However, they may be helpful 
td the officers of the federated garden club in deciding 
where they might try to organize new clubs. Raleigh 
and Nashville have been very successful in their efforts 
to organize new garden clubs — ■ even in blighted areas. 

Another aspect of the rehabilitation program which 
deserves a little discussion is the financing of home 
improvements. Surely the banks and other financial 
institutions as well as the lumber yards and other build- 
ing materials outlets would be logical clearing-houses 
for information regarding these matters. Some cities 
have set up home improvement advisory services to help 
people estimate the cost of needed rehabilitation and to 
direct them toward sources of capital. The FHA under 
Title I of the Housing Act of 1954 also insures loans 
for home improvements. Such loans are offered on easy 
terms over a five-year period. Contractors should be 
encouraged to cater to the rehabilitation market 
which can be a sizeable one. Its size and complexion 
will depend, however, on the private homeowners' and 
private landlords' evaluation of the stability and 
desirability of the neighborhood. This is where good 
zoning and housing code enforcement will help. The 
future of an area will thus be less unscrutable. 



Most of what has been said in this paragraph pertains 
to minor rehabilitation projects. It must also be 
remembered that there are individual structures in even 
the best of areas which will require major rehabilitation 
or even demolition. Some of this major rehabilitation 
will be accomplished voluntarily whereas other instances 
will require strict enforcement of the minimum housing 
code. If a dwelling is found, after inspection, to have 
structural and/or sanitary deficiencies which can be 
corrected at a cost that does not exceed the value of 
the building the owner will be required to make the 
appropriate improvements within a reasonable period of 
time. If, however, the dwelling is found to be so sub- 
standard that it is unfit for human habitation and un- 
economic to repair the owner of the building will be 
required to tear it down. Every dwelling in Shelby, 
good as well as bad, will be inspected over a period of 
ten years. The phasing out of the worst dwellings will 
take time, but it is manifestly mandatory. 



- 61 - 



SHELBY 

North Carolina 



Garde 



SUGGESTED 

n Club 



Areas 




M AP-20 



Potential Clearance and Redevelopment Areas . Prior to the 
discussion of Shelby's potential clearance and redevelopment 
areas it will be fitting to explain what urban renewal is. 
Urban renewal is a technique whereby the sub-standard or 
obsolescent areas within a city are either "shaped up or 
shipped out." In its broadest sense the term urban renewal 
involves both major and minor rehabilitation as well as 
partial or complete clearance and redevelopment. Since 
rehabilitation has already been discussed in this chapter, 
the emphasis of this subsection will be on the processes 
of partial or complete clearance followed by redevelopment. 
According to North Carolina General Statutes (Chapter 160, 
Article 37) a residential area must be two-thirds blighted 
in order to qualify as a "blighted area." The Planning 
Board must certify that at least two-thirds of the number 
of buildings within the area are dilapidated or deterior- 
ating in order for the area to be subject to the power of 
eminent domain. Within a predominantly non-residential 
area, one-half of the buildings must be seriously dilapi- 
dated in order to qualify it for redevelopment. Some of 
the criteria by which the various areas are judged include: 

(1) dilapidation, deterioration, age or 
obsolescence of buildings and other 

s tr uc ture s , 

(2) inadequate provision for ventilation, 
light, air, sanitation or open spaces, 

(3) defective or inadequate street layout, 

(4) faulty lot layout in relation to site, 
adequacy, accessibility or usefulness, 

(5) tax or special assessment delinquency 
exceeding the fair value of the property, 

(6) unsanitary or unsafe conditions, 

(7) the existence of conditions which endanger 
life or property by fire and other causes, or 

(8) any combination of such factors which: 

a. substantially impairs the sound growth 
of the community, 

b. has seriously adverse effects on 
surrounding development, and 

c. is detrimental to the public health, 
safety, morals or welfare. 

The justification or authority for "spot" or partial 
clearance is contained in subsection (q2) of the 
definitions section where "Rehabilitation, conservation, 
and reconditioning areas" are defined as those which are 
subject to a clear and present danger that, in the absence 
of municipal action they will be in the reasonably fore- 
seeable future a blighted area or a non-residential area 
as defined in subsections (q) and (ql). 



- 62 - 




1 



The process of clearance and redevelopment involves the 
purchase of those properties which lie within the bounds 
of an officially designated redevelopment area by the 
redevelopment commission which has been set up by the 
city to administer such projects. The redevelopment 
commission is a special purpose authority whose five 
members are appointed by the local governing body. It 
is very similar to and must work closely with the Housing 
Authority. The commission has the power to condemn 
property which it cannot purchase by mutual consent. 
Without this power to assemble contiguous tracts of land 
the plans of the municipality and the redevelopment 
commission with regard to slum clearance would be 
frustrated every time by hold outs, absentee ownership 
and estate tangles, Once the land has been acquired and 
cleared, whether partially or completely, and a compre- 
hensive plan for the re-use of the land has been drawn 
up and approved, the land is either resold to private 
interests for appropriate redevelopment or turned over 
to some public body such as the City or the Housing 
Authority » 

The indispensable role which low-rent public housing 
plays in this matter of slum clearance can be under- 
stood by pondering the relocation problem. In other 
words, those persons who are displaced by slum clearance 
must go somewhere. Most of the renters and some of the 
home owners will probably not be able to afford to buy 
standard housing even if it is available to them. 

These are the persons who can be greatly benefited by 
public housing. But, the public housing must be built 
before the dilapidated housing is demolished or else 
unnecessary hardships will be created. The Shelby 
Housing Authority is presently acquiring land in two 
areas on the north side of town. It is expected that 
90 units of public housing will be built in the vicinity 
of Atlantic and Piedmont Streets. Another 60 units will 
be built in the Antrum-Logan Streets area. For displaced 
persons who are presently home-owners (as well as those 
renters who are financially able) there can surely be 
some arrangement worked out whereby so-called "221 
Relocation Housing" can be built. This type of housing 
is on the order of regular FHA-insured housing, i.e., 
it is privately-owned s ing 1 e- f ami 1 y housing, but mortgage 
terms are much more liberal.' Ordinarily these relocatees 
have 40 years in which to pay off their loans. 



The integrity of the redevelopment plan is assured by 
protective covenants which run with the land — ■— which 
specify that the land will be re-used in accordance with 
the plan. This, coupled with proper zoning, is necessary 
to prevent the growth of new slums and incompatible uses 
in the project area. A city may receive substantial 



63 - 



financial assistance from the Federal Government in 
covering the difference between the price which the 
redevelopment authority must pay for the land and the 
price for which it resells the land. The purchase 
price is, because of improvements, almost always higher 
than the resale price. Some cities, noteably Indianapolis 
and Houston, have engaged in urban renewal without Federal 
financial participation, but this course of action is not 
recommended for Shelby. 



What is recommended for Shelby? It is recommended that 
Shelby's civic leaders investigate thoroughly the pros 
and cons of urban renewal as it is carried out by cities 
participating in the Federal Urban Renewal Program. It 
may well be that a painstaking study of the alternatives 
will indicate that there is really no other way to 
accomplish the job that needs to be done. Another advan- 
tage of the Federal Program is that cities can contribute 
a large proportion of their share of the total expense 
in what are called non-cash credits; i.e., they can build 
streets and sidewalks, install water and sewer lines, 
build schools and parks within the project area, and get 
credit for so doing, 



A discussion of the specific 
and redevelopment seem to be 
to the problems encountered 
were listed in the Land Deve 



areas within which clearance 
the only feasible solution 

is now in order. These areas 

1 opme nt Plan as: 



A. The area bounded roughly by North 

Washington Street, the railroad tracks, 
Carolina Avenue and Suttle Street. 



B. The area bounded roughly by East Warren 
Street, Hickory Creek, Anthony Street and 
Juan Place (i.e., Flat Rock) e 

C. The balance of the run-down area surroundin 
the Antrum-Logan Streets public housing 
site -- especially to the west and south. 

D. The small pocket of sub-standard homes 
along Knot, Black, Porter and Cline Streets 



E. The small pocket of sub-standard homes in 
the block bounded by Graham, McBrayer, 
Blanton, and Martin Streets. 



F. The "Jamestown" section. 



- 64 - 



Further study of the social and physical indicators 
of blight (as contained in Chapters I and II of this 
report) has made it possible to clarify and sharpen 
these boundaries somewhat. The areas might now be 
described thusly: 



A. The area bounded by the Seaboard Airline 
Railroad and Buffalo Street on the north, 
by the rear lot lines of lots facing east 
on Mint and Oakland Streets and Carolina 
Avenue on the east, by the rear lot lines 
of lots facing north on Oak and Suttle 
Streets on the south, and by the rear lot 
lines of lots facing west on Washington 
Street on the west. 



B. The area bounded by Warren Street and the 
rear lot lines of lots facing north on 
Marion Street on the north, by a creek and 
a southerly extension of Osborne Street on 
the east, by another creek (which parallels 
Anthony Street) on the south, and by Juan 
Place on the west. This is the Creeks ide- 
Flat Rock Area. 



C. The area bounded by the rear lot lines of 
businesses fronting on Grover Street as 
well as by the public housing site on the 
north, by Buffalo and Weathers Streets and 
a line connecting the two sections of 
Lincolnton Street on the east, by the Sea- 
board Airline Railroad tracks on the south, 
and by Eagle Street and the rear lot lines 
of lots facing east on White Street on the 
west. (This description would not, however, 
embrace a small pocket of bad housing located 
to the northeast of the public housing site 
on Frederick Street which should be included 
in the redevelopment area.) 

D. The area bounded by the Seaboard Airline 
Railroad tracks on the north, by Lineberger 
Street on the east, by the rear lot lines 

of lots facing south on Suttle Street on the 
south, and by the rear lot lines of lots 
facing west on Mint Street on the west, 

E. The area bounded by Graham, McBrayer, Blanton 
and Martin Streets -«•- excluding, however, 

the standard homes on the northern fringes 
of the block. 

F. The "Jamestown" Section, e.g. , Jamestown, 
Mulberry and Spangler "Streets." 



- 65 - 



To this list might be added a predominante ly non-residential 
area which evinces a substantial degree of blight: 



G. The block bounded by Warren, Morgan, Graham 

and McBrayer Streets* This block is practic- 
ally a wasteland in spite of its valuable 
location in proximity to downtown. It con- 
tains going businesses, abandoned storage 
buildings and service stations, three 
standard and three sub-standard residences, 
a nice parking lot and plenty of weeds. 

Map 18 shows these areas as precisely as they can be shown 
on a map of such small scale. The following table provides 
data on the number of standard and sub-standard residential 
and non-residential structures in each area == as well as 
the percentages of blight which these figures imply. 



TABLE VI INDICES OF BLIGHT IN SEVEN PROBLEM AREAS 



Numb e r 







Numb e r 


Numbe r 


Sub- 


Percentage 




Numbe r 


Sub- 


Stan. 


Stan. 


of 






Stan. 


Stan. 


Non- 


Non- 


B 1 igh t 






Res . 


Re s . 


Res . 


Re s . 


Dwe 1 1 . 


All 


Area 


S trues ■ 


S trues . 


S trues . 


S trues . 


Only 


S tr u c s . 


A 


20 


158 


4 


12 


88.76 


87.63 


B 


46 


208 


4 


4 


81 . 89 


80 . 92 


C 


28 


126 


2 


8 


81.82 


81.71 


D 


11 


57 


1 


3 


83 .82 


84,51 


E 


4 


44 


1 


1 


91,67 


91.84 


F 





33 








100,00 


100 . 00 


G 


3 


3 


3 


8 


50.00 


72.72 



The most likely order in which the seven proposed redevelop- 
ment projects might be accomplished, along with a rationale 
supporting the rank order, is as follows: 

(1) The "Jamestown" Section . This pocket of blight will 
be effectively wiped out by the projected connection 
between Grover and Lee Streets. This is a relatively 
high priority major thoroughfare project. Right-of- 
way acquisition would be tantamount to clearance with 
no Federal money needed. 

(2) Creeks ide-Flat Rock . This pocket of blight seems to 
be the most visible one in Shelby. Hence, it might be 
easier to "sell" this project than certain others. 



- 66 - 



Logical Future Land use Pattern 

Redevelopment Area B 

(With E v i r o n s ) 



SHELBY 

North Carolina 




LEGEND 
[',',') COMMERCIAL 
K?Q3 INDUSTRIAL 

PUBLIC a SEMI-PUBLIC 




SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 



MAP-21 



Logical Future Land use Pattern 

Redevelopment Areas A & 

(With E v i r o n s ) 




Although this area is not as bad as Area "A" (the 
W i 1 s on-War de 1 1 slum) it does have enough environ- 
mental problems to require almost complete clearance 
The Hunter School, which is one of the few assets of 
the area, should be spared and the size of its site 
should be increased. The standard homes along 
Graham, Holland and Pinckney Streets also should be 
preserved. The logical re-use of the entire area — 
excluding the creek bottom — is for medium or high 
density residential development. (Playgrounds and 
parks could utilize the creek-bottom areas which are 
unfit for housing. ) Parts of Flat Rock, because of 
the existing school and its proximity to downtown 
would make ideal public housing sites. However, it 
must be recognized that sufficient housing in other 
parts of the City would have to be provided before 
an area of this size could be cleared and redevelope 
Map 21 shows how the area might logically be revampe 
for business, public and private housing uses. 



The Wi 1 s on-War de 1 1 -C ar o 1 ina Avenue Section. This 
area will probably be the most costly one of all to 
clear and redevelop. The situation of the area in 
a creek bottom flanked by small hills will make for 
site planning problems. The creek should serve as 
the focus (linear at best) for a park or else it 
should be conduited. The logical re-use of the core 
of the area would be for public housing. The land 
would be too costly for "221" housing. However, 
general business development would be appropriate 
between Wilson and Washington Streets and heavy 
industrial development between Buffalo Street and 
the railroad tracks. Part of the Carolina Avenue 
shopping district might well be shifted to Wilson 
Street. Map 22 shows how the area might be 
redeveloped. 



The Balance of the Run-Down Area Surrounding the 
Antrum-Logan Streets Public Housing Site . This area 
will have more incentive to spruce up whenever the 
public housing project is completed. There are 
some nice homes in the area now, but the streets 
need improvement. White Street is basically alright 
but Lincolnton and Eagle Streets will need widening 
and repaving. Sidewalks would also be appropriate. 
The small business district at the corner of Weather 
and Buffalo Streets could be developed into somethin 
nice. It will be very convenient to the whole Negro 



- 67 - 



community situated between Grover Street and the 
railroad tracks. It is recommended that the area 
south of Weathers Street be "spot" cleared and 
remain in single- or two-family use while the 
blocks immediately surrounding the public housing 
site should be used for multi-family development — 
perhaps for the expansion of the public housing 
project. Map 22 shows a suggestive scheme for the 
redesign of the area. 

( 5 ) The Hickory-Morgan Streets Section in West Shelby , 
and This area should not be too difficult to acquire 

(6) and clear. It can probably be done with private 
capital and with private sanctions. Conceivably 
Area "G" (the potential business superblock) could 
be cleared and redeveloped at the same time. How- 
ever, this may be most feasible if eminent domain 
proceedings are used since a part of the area is 
tied up in an estate. The logical re-use of the 
Hickory-Minden Streets area is for single- and two- 
family residences. With a lessening of housing 
density, thanks to a new lotting pattern and new 
streets, this area can become an asset to the town. 
In so doing, it will serve to encourage the rehabili- 
tation of surrounding blocks especially to the 

s outhward . 



(7) The area between Mint and Lineberger Streets . This 
rather small area can surely be rehabilitated and 
"spot" cleared by private action. There should be 
a good market for the resale of the land fronting 
on Lineberger Street since it is already zoned for 
business development. That would leave only the 
run-down area focussed on Airline, Knot, Porter, 
Black, and Cline Streets to be renewed. The density 
of dwellings should be reduced and streets should 
be rebuilt. This might be a good area for "221" 
h ous ing . 



Granted the foregoing priority schedule is merely tentative, 
and although it looks awfully far into the future, it is the 
conclusion of this study that there are ways and means of 
eliminating shameful housing and environmental conditions » 
A city like Shelby has much to gain and very little to lose 
by employing these techniques and tools in a thoughtful 
and effective program of neighborhood betterment. 



- 68 -